DRC-2010-008246 - 0901a068809be156

b i}l AP-oa(3'{3
ffi$
State of Utah
GARY R. HERBERT
Goventor
GREC BELL
Aeurcnant Governor
Department of
Environmental Quality
Amanda Smith
Executive Director
DTVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
Dane L. Finerfrock
Director
January 20,2014
CERTIFIED IVIAIL
(Return Receipt Requested)
Mr. David C. Frydenlund
Vice President and General Counsel
Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (DUSA)
1050 Seventeenth St. Suire 950
Denver, Colorado, 80265
Subjecu Revised Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit UGW37O004 and Public PartiParticipation
Summary PPS) for the DUSA White Mesa Mill
Dear Mr. Frydenlund:
A public colnment period was held regarding the Permit modifications, which closed on October 8, 2009.
The Utah Division of Radiation Control (DRC) received verbal and written public comments during the
public participation period for the modifications to the Permit. After the public comment period, the DRC
made some additional minor modifications to the Permit. A copy of the Permit showing the additional
modifications in redJine strikeout format is included as Attachment 3 of the PPS. These modifications
were considered minor or more protective to public health and the environment. Therefore, it was not
necessary to have an additional public comment period and the DRC proceeded to incorporate the
modifications into the Permit.
These modifications have been incorporated into Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit UGW370004(Permi0 effective January 20,2010. Enclosed are copies of the PPS and the Final Revised Permit.
We request that you carefully read the final Permit revision to ensure future compliance with its provisions.
If you have any questions, please contact Phil Goble at (801) 5364044. Thank you for your cooperation in
this matter.
UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD
DLF/PRG:prg
enclosures
. I 68 North 1950 Wcsr . Salr lake City. UT
Mailing Address: P.O. Box lzl4850. Salt Lake Ciry, UT 84l144850
Telephone (801 ) 536-4250 . Fax (801 ) 533-4097 . T.D.D. (8Ol ) 536-4414
wvtr'-dcq,utoh.gov
Prinred m 10090 rccycted paprcr
Dane L. Fir/slrfrock
Co-ExecutiVe Secretary
:a5 QC,l(i' oo)Zu1
Permit No.ucw370004
STATE OF UTAH
DTVISION OF WATER QUALITY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITYUTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD
SALT LAKE CITY,I]TAH 84114-4870
GROI.iND WATER DISCHARGE PERMIT
In compliance with the provisions of the Utah Water Quality Act, Title 19, Chapter 5, Utah Code
Annotated 1953, as amended, the Act,
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
Independence plaza, Suite 950
1050 17th Street
Denver, Colorado 80265
is granted a ground water discharge permit for the operation of a uranium milling and tailings
disposal facility located approximately 6 miles south of Blanding, Utah. The facility is located oria
tract of land in Sections 28,29,32, and33, Township 37 South, Range 21qast,Salt Lake Base andMeridian, San Juan County, Utah.
The permit is based on representations made by the Permittee and other information contained in the
administrative record. It is the responsibility of the Permittee to read and understand all provisions
of this Permit.
The milling and tailings disposal facility shall be operated and revised in accordance with conditions
set forth in the Permit and the Utah Ground Water Quality Protection Regulations.
This modified Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit amends and supersedes all other GroundWater Discharge permits for this facility issued previously.
This Permit shall
This Permit shall
become effective on /
expire l\4srsh_EJ0l0.
Signed rn,gfiour rr/bil*, 2olo
Co-Executive
Table of Contents
PART I. SPECIFIC PERMIT CONDITIONS............ ...................... rA. Gnoumo Werrn CressmcarroN.......... ....................... IB. BlcrcRouNo WareR euarnv... ............... IC. Psnvtrrlnzrrs .........21. Ground Water Compliance Limits .........22. Tailings Cell Operations.......... ...............23. Prohibited Discharges ...........2D. Dtscnancr MnryvlzertoN AND Bssr Avau-esrr TBcHNoLoGy SreNoanos................... 61. DMT Design Standards for Existing Tailings Cells l, 2, and3..................................... 62. Existing Tailings Cell Construction Authorized ........................ g3. Existing Facility DMT performance Standards................ .......... g4. Best Available Technology Requirements for New construction ............................... l05. BAT Design Standards for Tailings Cell 4A............. ............... I I6. BAT PerforTnance Standards for Tailings Cell 4A............. ......137. Definition of 1le.(2) Waste....... ........... 148. Closed Cell Performance Requirements.....s. Facility Reclamation Requirements.........................:.:...::.::....:...:.:.:....:.:....::... .....'.'.......il10. Stormwater Management and spill control Requirements........... ............. 1411. Requirements for Feedstock Material Stored Outside the Feedstock Storage Area..... l5E. GnouNo warpn colermucE AND TpcnNorocy PERFoRMANCE Momronnqc............. 15l. Routine Groundwater Compliance Monitoring............. ........... 162. Groundwater Monitoring: Monitoring wells Mw-20 and MW-22............................ 173. Groundwater Head Monitoring ............ 174. Groundwater Monitoring well Design and construction criteria .............175. Monitoring Procedures for Wells ......... lg6. White Mesa Seep and Spring Monitoring .............. 1g7. DMT Performance Standard Monitoring ............... 198. BAT Perfornance Standard Monitoring ................209. On-site Chemicals Inventory ................2110. Tailings Cell Wastewater euality Monitoring .......2111. Groundwater Monitoring Modifications ................22F. RBpoRrnvc RrqurnnwNTs............ ...........22l. Routine Groundwater Monitoring Reports .............222. Routine DMT Performance Standard Monitoring Report....... ...................233. Routine BAT Perfofinance standard Monitoring Reports .......234. DMT and BAT Performance Upset Reports ..........245. Other Information............... ................. j ..................246. Groundwater Monitoring Well As-Built Reporls..... ................247. White Mesa Seeps and Springs Monitoring Reports.. ..............258. Chemicals InventoryReport...... ...........259. Tailings Cell Wastewater euality Reports .............2510. Revised Hydrogeologic Report ............2611. Annual Slimes Drain Recovery Head Report............... ............26G. OurorCorrpr_reNcs Srerus. ...................271. Accelerated Monitoring Status .._..........212. Violation of Permit Limits ...................273. Failure to Maintain DMT or BAT Required by permit.........................:...... ... ..........274. Facility Out of Compliance Status .......2gH. ColprraNcs Scrmpurn RnqunrwNTs. .......... .........2g
1. on-site ctremiclnvenrory Report a .................. 282. Infiltration and Contaminant Transport Modeling Work plan and Report ..................2g3. Plan for Evaluation of Deep Supply Well WW_2 ............... ..... 304. New Decontamination pad..................j.......... ........305. Existing Decontamination pad........... .................... 31PART tr. REPORTTNG REQUTREMENTS ..................32A. RppnssrvrarwE SAMpLrNG............... .......32B. ANeryncer pRocnounns................ ........32C. PpNerrms pon Terw8nNG............... ........32D. RrpoRrnqc op MoNrronNc RssuLTS.............. ...........32E. ColapulNcB Scrreour-es................ -.........32F. ApomoNerMoxrronnqcBy rlrE psnrwrrrn ............32G. RscoRos CoNrBNrs. ...............32
I. NorrcB or NoNcolpr_TANCE RppoRrNc .................... 33J. OrrmnNoNcorwuANcERnpoRrnqc ........33K. INsprcnoNeNoENrny ...........33PART Itr. COMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITIES............ ...........,....34A. Durvroconprv ....................34B. PrNarrms roR VrorerroNs orpsrutr CouornoNs ............... .....34C. NBBp ro HarroR Rpoucs Acrrvmy Nor A DBrsNsB ..................34D. Dury ro Mrucere ..................34E. PnoprR OpeRluoNaNo MeurrrrNANCE....... ..............34PART IV. GENERAL REQUTREMENTS ............... ..... 35A' PrauNso cneNcss ................. 35B. Amrcparrp NoNcovpuANCE........ ......... 35C. PennurAcnoNs... ...................35D. Dury ro Rrapp1y............... ...................... 35E. Dury ro pnovror Iur,oRrraerroN ......... ..... 35F. Orrmn IxroRvrenoN............. .................... 35G. SrcNeror.yRnqum.rwNTs........... ........... 35H. PsNALrrEs roR FemrprcATroN orRrpoRrs ............... ................... 36I. AvRu-aeLrry orR8poRTS.............. .......... 36
K. SrvnRasury............ ..............36L. TReNSrBns ............36M. Srarelaws ..........37N. RBopsNsR pnovrsroNs................ ..............37
List of Tables
Tablel.GroundWaterClassification.............
rable 2. Groundwater complianc. Li-i;;......::.::::..:.:::::.::.. """"' I
rable 3. DMr Engineering Design and Specifications .........:...:..::::.:...:...:.::.....:.:.:::.::..:::.:.:..:...:.;
Table 4. Feedstock Storage Area Coordinates ..... l0Table 5. Approved railings cell 44 Engineering Design and Specifications...... ..... I ITable 6. Groundwater Monitoring Reporting Schedule... ......22
C*,
Permit No. UGW3700O4
PART I. SPECIFIC PERMIT CONDITIONS
A. Gnouuo warsR crassmcarloN - 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 l. Ground Water Classification
1) N = Number of Samples2) Based on historic total dissolved solids (TDS) data provided by the Permittee for period berween october, 1979 andDecember, 2007. Thisdata was obtained from the Permittee's background groundwater quality reports dated October 2007 and April 30, 200g.3) Background concentrations of uranium in well MW-I8 (55.1 pglL) and thallium in Mw-lg (2.1 pgll) exceed theGWQS, 30 pglLand2.0pgll-, respectively. Therefore these wells have been classified as Class III groundwater rather than Class II groundwater.4) wells MW-20 and Mw -22 are not point of compliance monitoring wells, but instead are groundwaler headhonitoring wells as per part
Average concentrati^o^ns^and standard deviations for wells MW-20 and MW-22 were calculated by DRC staff from data from the DUSAand 3'd Quarters of 2008 Routine Groundwater Monitoring Reports
Background concentration of manganese in well MW-25 (1,s06 ltglL) excaeds the GWQS, therefore well MW-25 has been classified as classIII groundwater rather than Class II groundwater.6) well MW-26 was originally named TW4-15 and was installed as part of the chloroform contaminant investigation at the facility. Under thisPermit' MW-26 is defined as a Point of Compliance (POC) well for the tailings cells (see part I.8.1).7) Background concentrations of uranium in well MW-27 Ga pglL) and seleniuir in uw-: t 1zt pgll-) exceed the GWQS, therefore these wellshave been classified as class III groundwater rather than Class II groundwater.8) well MW-32 was originally nameil TW4-17 and was installed as part of the chloroform contaminant investigation at the facility. Under thisPermit it is included as a POC well for the tailings cells in part I.E.l.
B. BacrcnouND WATER QUALITY - based on groundwater samples collected through June 2007 forexisting 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 IV[W-32) and,through December 2007 for new wells (MW-3A,
Mw-23, NNV 24,Mw-25, NNv-z7,Mw-28, Mw-29, Mw-30 andNrw-31), the upperboundaryof background groundwater quality is determined on a well-by-well basis, pursuant to
t.8.2
z"d
Class II Groundwater
Average TDS (mg/L)
DUSA Data
Class III Groundwater
Average TDS (mg/L)
DUSA Data
Well
ID N(l)
Average
Concentration(2)
Standard
Deviation(2)Well ID N(r)
Average
Concentration(2)
Standard
Deviation(2)MW-1 77 1.273 93 MW-2 77 3,050 252MW-5 82 2,059 t70 MW-3 78 5.2r7 263MW-l1 7t r.844 178 MW-l2 6l 3.894 241MW-30 l0 r,745 87 MW-14 5l 3,592 176
MW-15 47 3,857 243
MW-17 22 4,444 32t
MW-19("18 2,605 297
MW-lg("22 2,457 900
MW-20("'2 5,610 57
NNV-22\o)2 7,365 361
MW-3A 9 5,547 t29
MW-23 10 3.443 244
NNV-24 10 4.116 tt7
MW-25("11 2,843 67
MW-26(o)t2 3,155 65
NNV-27")l0 1,019 28
MW-28 1l 3,677 87
MW-29 8 4,380 27
MW-31(l0 r,265 50
MW-32(o,,t2 3,669 247
Environmental Protection Agency (EpA) guidance, and
background groundwater quality reports dated october 2007
1.
C*,
Permit No. UGW37O0O4
documented in the Permittee's
and April 30, 2008.
C. PsnNflrLnzrrrs - the Permittee shall comply with the following permit limits:
Ground Water Compliance Limits - contaminant concentrations measured in each monitoringwell shall not exceed the Ground Water Compliance Limits (GWCL) defined inTable i,below. Groundwater quality at the site must at all times meet all the applicable GWeS andad hoc GWQS defined in R3l7-6 even though this permit does not require monitoring foreach specific contaminant.
Tailings Cell Operations - only I 1.e.(2)by-product material authorized by Utah Radioactive
Materials License No. UT-2300478 (hereafterLicense) shall be discharged to or disposed ofin the tailings ponds.
Prohibited Discharges - discharge of other compounds such as paints, used oil, antifreeze,pesticides, or any other contaminant not defined as lle.(2) material is prohibited.
-J.
B
p
oio
F
Lr(,
o
oU
No
.o
F
rL b+r sEt6 hgEo o.v=d a.o u ",E ETEE.:l 9aE-90 0=,:.=OOd--il uth ? a ds .Eg?lEH EiFd!5 ^oU)-O= ;#E il€S iE E fi HE 6 >v +rX €oE E 5€ =?:EE? H i arE",oi=EE o OYi O: m ce-e Eo EE-P oB .7E8X g- d N.,_-9-o :: !:-.--E EEHs,E
S E F HgFi*
"l .g'E bEE:EE O O:,=.- dPsE'? .eY-;c;
?EEE :iREi
?EHE EE€E:
gE g; Eg? H** e 5= *eg:qi
€tEi PIEEiit!iE Ec/):;.);! oJ 3 ,=.= 6S=*5 Pg" E:EE=;
EiEs €3gei*:fts 5 =It>=EE;E+ E"Srsig!tlgdsii>'b
ggrsaEErirg
!83;f Fi r=$EX};:EE:E]=E
rE6EEiE?=fEEHddgOEET;g{ Es! E iF il*€Se E'i2 E F:.X > d{€€48 EEtIet
B sI S;,H;€ i g E
? g €;# E;53 e'J
E EEErx gEiEN
,cIs!ds3;nf3bTE 9.6oEE;N ETENdEq_;ioEloF
;5FHiIEI=;icEE*aX€i-'E=*,8.9.= tr-i-,oT = c
?EEEi=gEigEEzEd!;:;3€;E=Ei9EEg€EE
3€ i g:f €€ii E
SEsscEEtiEEe =q oN u.-s.EEE"t.EEir{ HSrnrna aY -'=5ca!sOOOOUHH-ie'FE=>>85;;T9:gooo'os==>ZY6 g S g SE13rl>,i.o
s5!i!!sB5!HH5tol.91 ^^rl -NO.<ln\Or6
G*r
Permit No. UGW370004
D' DtscnancE MrNnflzATIoN eNo Brsr Avau-asrn TEcuNotocy STeNoARDS - the tailingsdisposal facility must be built, operated, and maintained according to the following DischarleMinimization Technology (DMT) and Best Available Technologv CneO standards:
1' DMT Design Standards for Existing Tailings Cells l, 2, and3 - shall be based on existingconstruction as described by design and construction information provided by the permittee]
as summarizedin Table 3 below for Tailings cells 7,2, and3:
Table 3. DMT E Desi
Footnotesl) D'Appolonia consulting Engineers, Inc., June, 1979, "Engineers Report Tailings Management System white Mesa Uranium projectBlanding, Utah Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. Denver, colorido", ,npulhrh.d con'suttants report, approximately 50 pp., 2 figures, 16 sheets, 2appendices.
2) D'Appolonia consulting Engineers, Inc., February, 1982, "construction Report Initial phase - Tailings Management system white MesaUranium Project Blanding, Utah Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. Denver, coro.uiJ;, u.fublished consultants report, approximately 7 pp., 6 tables,l3 figures, 4 appendices.
D'Appolonia consulting Engineers, Inc., May, 1981, "Engineer's Reporr Second phase Design - Cell 3 Tailings Management system white
ffi.[,'r':ll[,t#lT'"i1111k'* Energv Fuels Nuclear, Inc. Denver, cotorado", unpublished consultanti."po.t,'uppro*irnately 20 pp., l
Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc', March, 1983, "construction Report Second Phase Tailings Management system white Mesa Uranium projectEnergy Fuels Nuclear, rnc.", unpublished company report, ia pp., r tables, 4 figures,"5 affenoicer.
a) Tailings cell I - consisting of the following major design elements:
Cross-valley Dike and East Dike - constructed on the south side of the pond of nativegranular materials with a 3:1 slope, a 20-foot crest width, and a cresi elevation ofabout 5'620 ft above mean sea level (amsl). A dike of similardesign was constructedon the east margin of the pond, which forms a continuous earthen structure with thesouth dike. The remaining interior slopes are cut-slopes at 3: I grade.
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 theFML liner was 5,618.5 ft amsl on both the south dike and the north cut_slope. Aprotective soil cover layer was constructed immediately over the FML with athickness of l2-inches on the cell floor and lS-inches on the interior sideslope.
Crushed Sandstone Underlay - immediately below the FML a nominal 6-inch thicklayer of crushed sandstone was prepared and rolled smooth as a FML sub-base layer.Beneath this underlay, native sandstone and other foundation materials were graiedto drain to a single low point near the upstream toe of the south cross-valle! oit".Inside this layer, an east-west oriented pipe was installed to gather fluids at theupstieam toe of the cross-valley dike.
l)
2)
3)
n neefl t and Sneciflcatinnc
Tailings
Cell
Report
Tvpe Engineering Report Design Fisures
Construction
SpecificationsCell I Design June,1979 D'Appolonia
Consulting Engineers, Inc (l)Appendix A, Sheets 2, 4,8,
9.12-15
Appendix B
App"rdt^ BCell2DesignJune,l979 D'Appolonia
Consulting Engineers, Inc (l)Appendix A, Sheets 2,4,7-
10, t2-15
As-Built February, 1982 D'Appolonia
Consulting Engineers, Inc (2)
Figures 1,2, and ll N/A
Cell3 Design May, 1981D'Appolonia
Consulting Engineers, Inc (3)
Sheets 2-5 Appendix B
As-Built March, 1983 Energy Fuels
Nuclear, Inc. (a)Figures 1-4 N/A
G*r
Permit No. UGW370004
b) Tailings cell2 - which consists of the following major design elements:
l) Cross-valley Dike - constructed at the south margin of Cell 2 of native granular
materials with a 3:1 slope, a2}-footcrest width, and crest elevation of about 5,615 ftamsl. The east and west interior slopes consist of cut-slopes with a3:l grade. TheCell 1 south dike forms the north margin of Cell 2, witha crest elevation of 5,620 ftamsl.
2) Liner System - includes a single 30 mil PVC FML liner constructed of solventwelded 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 onthe north and south dikes, respectively. Said Cell2FML liner is independent of allother disposal cell FML liners. Immediately above the FML, a nominal l2-inch (cellfloor) to 18-inch (inside sideslope) soil protective blanket was constructed of nativesands from on-site excavated soils.
3) Crushed Sandstone Underlay - immediately below the FML a nominal6-inch thicklayer of crushed sandstone was prepared and rolled smooth as a FML sub-base layer.Beneath this underla), native sandstone and other foundation materials were gradedto drain to a single low point near the upstream toe of the south cross-valley alt".Inside this layer, an east-west oriented pipe was installed to gather fluids at theupstream toe of the cross-valley dike.
4) Slimes Drain Collection System immediately above the FML a nominal l2-inch thickprotective blanket layer was constructed of native silty-sandy soil. On top of thisprotective blanket, a network of 1.S-inch PVC perforated pipe laterals was installedon a grid spacing interval of about 50-feet. These pipe laierals gravity drain to a 3-inch diameter perforated PVC collector pipe which also drains towardihe south dikeand is accessed from the ground surface via a 24-inch diameter, vertical non-perforated HDPE access pipe. Fach run of lateral drainpipe and collectorpiping wascovered with a 12 to l8-inch thick berm of native granular filter material. At cellclosure, leachate head inside the pipe network wilibe removed via a submersiblepump installed inside the 24-inch diameter HDPE access pipe.
c) Tailings cell 3 - consisting of the following major design elements:
Cross-valley Dike - constructed at the south margin of Cell 3 of native granularmaterials with a 3:1 slope, a 2o-foot crest width, and a crest elevation of 5,610 ftamsl. The east and west interior slopes consist of cut-slopes with a 3: I grade. TheCell2 south dike forms the north margin of Cell 3, with a crest elevation of 5,615 ftamsl.
Liner System - includes a single 30 mil PVC FML liner constructed of solventwelded seams on a prepared sub-base, and overlain by a slimes drain collectionsystem. Top elevation of the EML liner in Cell 3 is 5,613.5 ft and 5,60g.5 ft amsl onthe north and south dikes, respectively. Said Cell 3 FML liner is independent of allother disposal cell FML liners.
Crushed Sandstone Underlay - immediately below the FML a nominal6-inch thicklayer of crushed sandstone was prepared and rolled smooth as a FML sub-base layer.
Beneath this underlay, native sandstone and other foundation materials were graied
1)
2)
3)
2.
G*r
Permit No. uGW3700o4
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 theupstream toe of the cross_valley dike.
4) slimes Drain Collection Layerand System - immediately above the FML, a nominal72-inch (cell floor) to l8-inch (inside sideslope) soil protective blanket wasconstructed of native sands from on-site excavated soils (7bZo) and dewatered andcyclone separated tailings sands from the mi\| (30vo). on top of this protectiveblanket, a network of 3-inch PVC perforated pipe laterals was installed onapproximately 50-foot centers. This pipe n.t*o.t gravity drains to a 3-inchperforated PVC collector pipe which also drains toward the south dike, where it isaccessed from the ground surface by a L2-inch diameter, inclined I{DPE access pipe.Each run of the 3-inch lateral drainpipe and collector pipe was covered with a 12 tolS-inch thick berm of native granular filter media. Aicell closure, leachate headinside the pipe network will be removed via a submersible pump installed inside the12-inch diameter inclined access pipe.
Existing Tailings Cell construction Authoized, -tailings disposal in existing Tailings Cells1,2, and 3 is authorizedby this Permit as defined in Table 3 and part I.D.l, above.Authorized operation and maximum disposal capacity in each of the existing tailings cellsshall not exceed the levels authorized by the License. Under no circumstances shall thefreeboard be less than three feet, as measured from the top of the FML. Any modification bythe Permittee to any approved engineering design parameter at these existing tailings cellsshall require prior Executive Secretary approval, modification of this permit, alnd issuance ofa construction permit.
Existing Facility DMT Performance standards - the Permittee shall operate and maintaincertain mill site facilities and the existing tailings disposal cells ro minimize ttr" fo,"nria ro,wastewater release to groundwater and the environment, including, but not limited to thefollowing additional DMT compliance measures :
a) DMT Monitoring Wells at Tailings Cell I - at all times the Permittee shall operate and
J.
maintain Tailings Cell I to prevent
monitoring well from exceeding any
Table 2 of this permit.
b) Tailings Cells 2 and3 - including the
l) Slimes Drain Maximum Allowable Head - the Permittee shall at all times maintainthe average wastewater recovery head in the slimes drain access pipe to be as low asreasonably achievable (ALARA) in each tailings disposal cell, in accordance with thecurrently approved DMT Monitoring plan.
2) Monthly Slimes Drain Recovery Test - the Permittee shall conduct a monthly slimesdrain recovery test at each tailings cell slimes drain that meets the foilowingminimum requirements:
Includes a duration of at least 90-hours, as measured from the time that pumping
ceases, and
ii. Achieves a stable water level at the end of the test, as
8
groundwater quality conditions in any nearby
Ground Water Compliance Limit established in
following performance criteria:
measured by three
consecutive hourly
level, as measured
o
Permit No. UGW3700O4
water level depth measurements, with no change in water
to the nearest 0.01 foot.
3) Annual Slimes Drain Compliance - shall be achieved when the average annual
wastewater recovery elevation in the slimes drain access pipe, as determined pursuant
to the currently approved DMT Monitoring Plan, meets the conditions in Equation 1,
below:
Equation l:
lIEv+lEy-1+LBy-zl/[Nv+Ny-t+Ny-z]<[IEv-r+fEyz+fEy-:]/[Ny-r+Ny-z+Ny-:J
IE, = Sum of all monthly slimes drain tailings fluid elevation measurements that meet the test
performance standards found in Part I.D.3(b)(2), during the calendar year of interest. Hereafter, these
water level measurements are referred to as slimes drain recovery elevations (SDRE). Pursuant to the
currently approved DMT Monitoring Plan, these recovery tests are to be conducted monthly and the
SDRE values reported in units of feet above mean sea level (amsl).
= Sum of all SDRE measurements made in the year previous to the calendar year of
LEv-z = Sum of all SDRE measurements made in the second year previous to the calendar year of
interest.
IEy-: = Sum of all SDRE measurements made in the third year previous to the calendar year of
interest.
Ny = Total number of SDRE tests that meet the test performance standards found in part
I.D.3(b)(2), conducted during the calendar year of interest.
Ny-r = Total number of SDRE tests that meet the test performance standards found in Part
I.D.3(bX2), conducted in the year previous to the calendar year of interest.
Ny-z = Total number of SDRE tests that meet the test performance standards found in PartI.D.3(b)(2), conducted in the second year previous to the calendar year of interest.
Ny-: = Total number of SDRE tests that meet the test performance standards found in part
I.D.3(bX2), conducted in the third year previous to the calendar year of interest.
Prior to January 1,2013, the following values for E and N values in Equation 1 shall
be based on SDRE data from the following calendar years.
Report for
Calendar
Year
Source of Data By Calendar Year for Equation I Variables (rieht side)
E"-'E Eu-r N".N"-r N.,
20to 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009
20tt 2010 2009 2009 20LO 2009 2009
2012 20tt 2010 2009 20tl 2010 2009
Failure to satisfy conditions in Equation I shall constitute DMT failure and non-
compliance with this Permit. For Cell 3, this requirement shall apply after initiation of
de-watering operations.
c) Maximum Tailings Waste Solids Elevation - upon closure of any tailings cell, the
Permittee shall ensure that the maximum elevation of the tailings waste solids does not
]*,
Permit No. uGW370004
exceed the top of the FML liner.
DMT Monitoring Wells - at all times the Permittee shall operate and maintain TailingsCells 2 and 3 to prevent groundwater quality conditions irrany nearby monitoring wellfrom exceeding any Ground Water Compliance Limit established in Table 2 of thisPermit.
Roberts Pond - the Permittee shall operate this wastewater pond so as to provide aminimum 2-foot freeboard at all times. Under no circumstances shall the water level inthe pond exceed an elevation of 5,624 feet amsl. In the event that the wastewater
elevation exceeds this maximum level, the Permittee shall remove the excess wastewaterand place it into containment in Tailings Cell I within 72-hours of discovery. At the
time of mill site closure, the Permittee shall reclaim and decommission the Roberts pond
in compliance with a final Reclamation Plan approved under the License (hereafter
Reclamation Plan).
Feedstock Storage Area - open-air or bulk storage of all feedstock materials at the facilityawaiting mill processing shall be limited to the eastern portion of the mill site areadescribed in Table 4, below. Storage of feedstock materials at the facility outside thisarea, shall meet the requirements in Part LD.l1. At the time of mill site closure, thePermittee shall reclaim and decommission the Feedstock Storage Area in compliancewith an approved Reclamation plan.
Corner Northine (ft)Easting (ft)
Northeast 323,s95 2,580.925
Southeast 322,t40 2,590,920
Southwest 322,140 2,590,420
West I 322,915 2,580,410
West 2 323.040 2,590,095
West 3 323.t20 2,s80.085
West 4 323.315 2,580.285
West 5 323,415 2,579.990
Northwest 323,600 2,579,990
l) Approximate State Plane coordinates beginning from the extreme northeast corner and progressing clockwise aroundthe feedstock atea (from 6t22l0l DUSA Response, Attachment K, Site Topographic Map, ievised June, 2001 .)
g) Mill Site Chemical Reagent Storage - for all chemical reagents stored at existing storagefacilities and held for use in the milling process, the Permittee shall provide seconOalrycontainment to capture and contain all volumes of reagent(s) that might be released atany individual storage area. Response to spills, cleanup thereof, and required reporting
shall comply with the provisions of the approved Emergency Response ilu, u, found inthe currently approved Stormwater Best Management Practices plan. For any newconstruction of reagent storage facilities, said secondary containment and control shallprevent any contact of the spilled or otherwise released reagent or product with theground surface.
4. Best Available Technology Requirements for New Construction - any construction,modification, or operation of new waste or wastewater disposal, treatment, or storagefacilities shall require submittal of engineering design plans and specifications, and prior
d)
e)
f)
Table 4. Feedstock S Area Coordinates (l)
10
C*r
Permit No. UGW370004
Executive Secretary review and approval. All engineering plans or specifications submittedshall demonstrate compliance with all Best Available Tichnotogy (BAT) requirementsstipulated by the Utah Ground Water Quality Protection Regulations (UAC n:f Z--O). UponExecutive Secretary approval this Permit may be re-opened and modified to include anynecessary requirements.
5' BAT Design Standards for Tailings Cell 4,A, - the BAT design standard for Tailings Cell 44shall be defined by and construction conform to the requirements of the June 25,2007Executive Secretary design approval letter for the relining of former existing Tailings CellNo' 44, and as summarized by the engineering drawings, specificatiorr, unJd"rcription inTable 5, below:
r)
2)
Table 5. A ved T
As qualified by conditions found in May 2,2C/J7 Division of Radiation control letter.As clarified by February 8, 2007 Division of Radiation contror Round 6 Interrogatory.
Tailings Cell 4A Design and Construction - approved by the Executive Secretary will consistof the following major elements:
ll
a 4A reering Desien and Soecificafions
Engineering Drawines
Name Date Revision
No.
Title
Sheet I of 7 June,2007 Title Sheet
Sheet 2 of 7 June 75,2007 Rev. I Site Plan
Sheet 3 of 7 June 15,2007 Rev. I Ijase Gradins Plan
Sheet 4 of7 June 15,2007 Rev. I Prpe Layout Plan
Sheet 5 of 7 June 5,2007 Rev. I Linine Svstem Details T
Sheet 6 of7 June 15,2007 Rev. I Lln ns Svstem Details TI
Sheet 7 of7 June 15, 2007 Rev. I Lrn ng System Details ItrFigure I August,2008 Spillway Splash Pad Anchor
Engineering Specifications
Date Document Title Prenarerl hv
June,2007 Revised Technical Specifications for the
Construction of Cell 4,{ Lining System
Geosyntec Consultants
June,2007 Revised Construction euality Assurance plan
for the Construction of Cell 4,{ Linine System
Geosyntec Consultants
March 27,200'7 Revised Geosynthetic Clay Liner Hydrition
Demonstration Work Plan (l)Geosyntec Consultants
November 27,2006 Cell Seismic Study (z)MFG Consulting
Scientists and EngineersOctober 6,2006 Calculation of Action kakage Rate tfrrougtr
the kakage Detection System Underlying a
Geomembrane Liner
Geosyntec Consultants
Iune 22,2006 Slope Stability Analysis Cell4,A - Interim
Conditions
Geosyntec Consultants
June 23,2006 Settlement Evaluation of Berms@ Geosyntec ConsultantsAugust 22,2006 rlpe Strength Calculations Geosyntec ConsultantsSeptember 27,2007
Footnotes:
llvlq Ceil 4,{ - GCL Hydration Geosyntec Consultants
a)
b)
C*,
Permit No. UGW370004
Dikes - consisting of existing earthen embankments of compacted soil, constructed by the
Permittee between 1989-1990, 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 1V. 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
2ll-feet at the west dike.
Foundation - including existing subgrade soils over bedrock materials. Foundation
preparation included excavation and removal of contaminated soils, compaction of
importedsoilstoamaximumdrydensity of 90%o. Floorof Cell44hasanaverageslope
of lvo that grades from the northeast to the southwest corners.
Tailings Capacity - the floor and inside slopes of Cell 4,{ 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).
Liner and Irak Detection Systems - including the following layers, in descending order:
Primary Flexible Membrane Liner (FML) - consisting of impermeable 60 mil high
density polyethylene (HDPE) membrane that extends across both the entire cell floor
and the inside side-slopes, and is anchored in a trench at the top of the dikes on all
four sides. The primary FML will be in direct physical contact with the tailings
material over most of the Cell 4A floor area. In other locations, the primary FML
will be in contact with the slimes drain collection system (discussed below).
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 comer. Access to the leak detection sump is via an
1S=inch inside diameter (ID) PVC pipe placed down the inside slope, Iocated 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.
Secondary FML - consisting of an impermeable 60-mil HDPE membrane found
immediately below the leak detection geonet. Said FML also extends across the
entire Cell 4A floor, up the inside side-slopes and is also anchored in a trench at the
top of all four dikes.
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. Priorto disposal of any wastewaterin Cell 44, the
Permittee shall demonstrate that the GCL has achieved a moisture content of at least
507o by weight. This item is a revised requirement per DRC letter to DUSA dated
September 28,2007.
c)
d)
1)
2)
3)
4)
e)Slimes Drain Collection System
perforated collection pipes both
follows:
- including a two-part system of strip drains and
installed immediately above the primary FML, as
t2
;*I
Permit No. UGW370OO4
1) Horizontal Strip Drain System - is installed in a herringbone pattern across the floor
of Cell 44 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) Honzontal 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 4,A. where it joins the slimes drain access pipe.
3) Slimes Drain Access Pipe - consisting of an lS-inch ID Schedule 40 PVC pipe placed
down the inside slope of Cell 4,{ at the southwest corner, above the primary FML.
Said pipe then merges with another horizontal pipe of equivalent diameter and
material, where it is enveloped by gravel and woven geotextile that serves as a
cushion to protect the primary FML. A reducer connects the horizontal lS-inch pipe
with the 4-inch SDC pipe. At some future time, a pump will be set in this l$-inch
pipe and used to remove tailings wastewaters for purposes of de-watering the tailings
cell.
North Dike Splash Pads - three 20-foot wide splash pads will be constructed on the.north
dike to protect the primary FML from abrasion and scouring by tailings slurry. These
pads will consist of an extra layer of 60 mil HDPE membrane that will be installed in the
anchor trench and placed down the inside slope of Cell 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.
Emergency Spillway - a concrete lined spillway will be constructed near the western
corner of the north dike to allow emergency runoff from Cell 3 into Cell 4A. This
spillway will be limited to a 6-inch reinforced concrete slab set directly over the primary
FML in a 4-foot deep trapezoidal channel. No other spillway or overflow structure will
be constructed at Cell 4A. All stormwater runoff and tailings wastewaters not retained in
Cells 2 and 3, will be managed and contained in Cell 4,{, including the Probable
Maximum Precipitation and flood event.
6- BAT Perforrnance Standards for Tailings Cell 4,{ - the Permittee shall operate and maintain
Tailings Cell 4A so as to prevent release of wastewater to groundwater and the environmentin accordance with the currently approved Cell 4A BAT Monitoring Operations and
Maintenance Plan. The plan's performance standards include the following:
0
s)
13
G*r
Permit No. UGW37O0O4
a) Leak Detection System (LDS) Maximum Allowable Daily Head - the fluid head in theLDS shall not exceed 1 foot above the lowest point on the lower flexible membrane lineron the cell floor. For purposes of compliance this elevation will equate to a maximumdistance of 2.28 feet above the LDS transducer. At all times the permittee shall operatethe LDS pump and transducer in a horizontal position at the lowest point of the LDSsump floor.
b) LDS Maximum Allowable Daily l.eak Rate - shall not exceed 24,l6}gallons/day.
Slimes Drain Monthly and Annual Average RecoveryHead Criteria - afterthe permittee
initiates pumping conditions in the slimes drain layer in Cell 4A, the permittee willprovide: 1) continuous declining fluid heads in thl slimes drain layer, in a mannerequivalent to the requirements found in Part I.D.3(b), and2)a maximum head of 1.0 feetin the tailings (as measured from the lowest point of upper flexible membrane liner) in6.4 years or less.
Maximum Weekly Wastewater Irvel - under no circumstance shall the freeboard be lessthen 3-feet in cell 44, as measured from the top of the upper FML.
7 ' Definition of I la (2) waste - for purposes of this Permit , lle.(2)waste is defined as: ,,...
tailings or wastes produced by the extraction or concgntration of uranium or thorium fromany ore processed primarily for its source material content", as defined in Section I le.(2) ofthe U'S' Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; which includes other process relatedwastes and waste streams described by a March 7,2003 NRC letter from paul H. Lohaus toWilliam J. Sinclair.
8' closed cell Performance Requirements - before reclamation and closure of any tailingsdisposal cell, the Permittee shall ensure that the final design, construction, and operation of
3:^:",1::,:yrp,* at each tailings cell.will comply with-alt requirements of an approved
1::*l':lj]"1111 wlll for a period of noi iess than 20o years meet the fouowingminimum performance requirements :
c)
d)
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 riseabove or over-top the maximum FML liner elevation internal to any disposal cell, i.e.create a "bathtub,'effect, and
c) Ensure that groundwaterquality at the compliance monitoring wells does not exceed theGround Water Quality Standards or Ground Water Compliance Limits specified in partLC.l and Table 2 of this permit.
9' Facility Reclamation Requirements - upon commencement of decommissioning, thePermittee shall reclaim the mill site and all related facilities, stabilize the tailings cells, andconstruct a cover system over the tailings cells in compliance with all engineering design andspecifications in an approved Reclamation Plan. The
-Executive
Secretary reserves the rightto require modifications of the Reclamation Plan for purposes of compliance with the utahGround Water Quality Protection Regulations, including-but not limited to containment andcontrol of contaminants, or discharges, or potential discharges to Waters of the State.
10' Stormwater Management and Spill Control Requirements - the permittee will manage all
l4
Cu.,,
Permit No. UGW370004
contact and non-contact stormwater and control contaminant spills at the facility inaccordance with the currently approved StormwaterBest Management practices plan. Saidplan includes the following minimum provisions:
a) Protect groundwater quality or other waters of the state by design, construction, and/oractive operational measures that meet the requirements of the Ground Water eualityProtection Regulations found in UAC R3l7-6-6.3(G) and R3l7-6_6.4(c),
Prevent, control and contain spills of stored reagents or other chemicals at the mill site,
Cleanup spills of stored reagents or other chemicals at the mill site immediately upondiscovery, and
d) Report reagent spills or other releases at the mill site to the Executive Secretary inaccordance with UAC 19-5-114.
Reconstruction of stormwater management and.ior chemical reagent storage facilities,existing at the time of original Permit issuance, may be required by the Executive Secretaryafter occurrence of a major spill or catastrophic failure, pursuant to part IV.N.3 of thisPermit.
1 1' BAT Requirements for Feedstock Material Stored outside the Feedstock Storage Area - thePermittee shall store and manage feedstock materials outside the ore storage pad inaccordance with the following minimum performance requirements:
a) Feedstock materials will be stored at all times in water-tight containers, and
b) Aisle ways will be prcivided at all times to allow visual inspection of each and everyfeedstock container, or
c) Each and every feedstock container will be placed inside a water-tight overpack prior tostorage, or
d) Feedstock containers shall be stored on a hardened surface to prevent spillage ontosubsurface soils, and that conforms with the following minimum physical requirements:
1) A storage area composed of a hardened engineered surface of asphalt or concrete, and
2) A storage area designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with engineeringplans and specifications approved in advance by the Executive Secretary. All suchengineering plans or specifications submitted shall demonstrate compliance with part
I.D.4, and
3) A storage area that provides containment berms to control stormwater run-on andrun-off, and
Stormwater drainage works approved in advance by the
Other storage facilities and means approved in advance
b)
c)
4)
s)
Exbcutive Secretary, or
by the Executive Secretary.
E' GnouNo WATER COMPLIANCE AND TscnNotocy hRFoRMANCE MoNTToRTNG - beginning withthe effective date and lasting through the term of this Permit or as stated in an approved closureplan, the Permittee shall sample groundwater monitoring wells, tailing cell wastewaters, seepsand springs, monitor groundwater levels, monitor water levels of process solutions, and monirtorand keep records of the operation of the facility, as follows:
15
Cu.,,
Permit No. UGW370OO4
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 Executive Secretary. Any non-
conformance with QAP requirements in a given quarterly groundwater monitoring period
will be corrected and reported to the Executive Secretary on or before submittal of the
next quarterly groundwater monitoring report pursuant to part I.F.1.
Quarterly Monitoring - the Permittee shall monitor on a quarterly basis all monitoring
wells listed in Table 2 of this Permit where local groundwater average linearvelocityhas
been found by the Executive Secretary to be equal to or greater than 10 feet/year. For
purposes of this Permit, quarterly monitoring is required at the following wells:
l) Upgradient Wells: none
2) Lateral or Downgradient wells: Mw- I l, Mw- 14, Mw-25, Mw-26 (formerly TW4-
15), MW-30, and MW-31.
c) Semi-annual Monitoring - the Permittee shall monitor on a semi-annual basis all
monitoring wells listed in Table 2 of this Permit where local groundwater average linear
velocity has been found by the Executive Secretary to be less than 10 feet/year. For
purposes of this Permit, semi-annual monitoring is required at the following wells:
l) Upgradient Wells: MW-l, MW-18, MW-19, and MW-27.
2) Lateral orDowngradient wells: Mw-2, Mw-3, Mw-3A, Mw-5, Mw-12, Mw-15,
Mw-17, Mw-23, NNv-24, Mw-28, Mw-29, and MW-32 (formerly Tw4-17).
d) Compliance Monitoring Parameters - all groundwater samples collected shall be analyzed,
for the following parameters:
l) Field Parameters - depth to groundwater, pH, temperature, specific conductance, and
redox potential (Eh).
2) Laboratory Parameters
GWCL Parameters - all contaminants specified in Table 2.
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:
l) 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
16
a)
b)
G*I
Permit No. UGW37}OO4
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 o.1"., than 20Vo of thereported activity concentration. An error term may be greater than 2OVo of the
reported activity concentration when the sum of the activity concentration and error
term is less than or equal to the GWCL.
4) All equipment used for purging and sampling of groundwater shall be made of inert
materials.
2. Groundwater Monitoring: Monitoring Wells MW-20 and MW-22 - Starting with the I't
Quarter 2008 groundwater event the Permittee shall implement a quarterly groundwater
sampling program. Said sampling shall comply with the following Permit requirements:
a) Routine groundwater compliance monitoring requirements of part I.E.l.
b) Well monitoring procedure requirements of part I.E.5.
After completion of eight consecutive quarters of groundwater sampling and analysis ofMW-20 and MW-22,the Permittee shall submit a Background Report that will include:
1) Data preparation and statistical analysis of groundwater quality data, including
treatment of non-detectable values, statistical methods. These statistics shall be
calculated using the Decision Tree/Flowchart used for the previous Background'
Reports that was conditionally approved by the DRC on August 24,2007.
2) Aquifer test results to determine local hydraulic conductivity and other aquifer
properties at wells MW-20 andNNV_Z2.
3) Average linear groundwater velocity calculated for MW-20 and MW-22, based onwell specific hydraulic conductivity, hydraulic gradient, and effective aquiferporosity.
The said report shall be submitted by March l, 2010. After review of this report theExecutive Secretary will evaluate if wells Mw-20 and MW-22 should be added as poc
wells, and adjust the sampling frequency in accordance with criteria found in part I.E.1(b) or(c)' If it is determined that wells MW-20 and,NNV-2z should be added as pOC wells, theExecutive Secretary will re-open this Permit and establish Groundwater Compliance Limitsin Table 2 for wells MW-20 and,NNV-22.
3. Groundwater Head Monitoring - on a quarterly basis and at
groundwater monitoring required by part I.E.l, the permittee
groundwater in the following wells and/or piezometers:
the same frequency as
shall measure depth to
a) Point of Compliance Wells - identified in Table 2 and.Part I.E.l of this permit.
b) Piezometers - P-1, P-2,P-3,P-4, p-5.
c) Existing Monitoring Wells - MW-20 and MW-22.
d) Contaminant Investigation Wells - any well required by the Executive Secretary as a partof a contaminant investigation or groundwater corrective action.
e) Any other wells or piezometers required by the Executive secretary.
4. Groundwater Monitoring Well Design and Construction Criteria - all new groundwater
t7
a) Located as close as practical to the contamination source, tailings cell, or other potentialorigin of groundwater pollution.
Screened and completed in the shallow aquifer.
Designed and constructed in compliance with UAC R3 l7-6-6.3(IX6), including the EpARCRA Ground Water Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance DocumJnt, 19g6,oswER-9950.1.
d) Aquifer tested to determine local hydraulic properties, including but not limited tohydraulic conductivity.
5' Monitoring Procedures for Wells - beginning with the date of permit issuance, all monitoringshall be conducted by the Permittee in conformance with the following procedures:
a) Sampling - grab samples shall be taken of the groundwater, only after adequate removalor purging of standing water within the well casing has been plrformed.
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 renderedinadequate for its intended purpose, the Permittee shall notiiy the Executive Secretary inwriting within five calendar days of discovery.
e) Field Monitoring Equipment Calibration and Records - immediately prior to eachmonitoring event, the Permittee shall calibrate all field monitoring equipment inaccordance with the respective manufacturer's procedures and guidelines. The permittee
shall make and preserve on-site written records of such Jluipment calibration inaccordance with Part tr.G and H of this Permit. Said records shall identify themanufacturer'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 monitoringof all seeps and springs identified in the currently approved Sampling plan for Seeps anISprings in the vicinity of the White Mesa Uranium Mitt. suia -onitoring shall include, butis not limited to:
a) Field Measurements - including: pH, temperature, and specific conductivity,
" b) Water Quality Sampling and Analysis - the Permittee shall collect grab samples andperform laboratory analysis of all water quality parameters identified in Table 2 of thisPermit, and
c) Certified t,abordtory Analysis - all laboratory analysis will be conducted by a Utahcertified laboratory.
Analytical Methods - all laboratory analysis shall be conducted using analytical methodslisted in the currently approved eAp pursuant to part LE.l of this permii.
Minimum Detection Limits - all seeps or springs water quality analyses reported shall
b)
c)
C*,
Permir No. UGW370004
comply with the following design andmonitoring wells installed at the facility shall
construction criteria:
d)
e)
l8
have a minimum
respective:
detection limit or
C*,
Permit No. uGW370004
reporting limit that is less than or equal to the
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: l0 mgtL,l mglL,and 1 mg/L,
respectively
Quality Control Samples - the Permittee will conduct quality control (eC) sampling and
analysis as a part of all seeps and springs sampling, in accordance with the requirements
of Section 4.3 of the currently approved QAP; pursuant to Part I.E.1 of this permit. Said
QC samples shall include, but are not limited to: trip blanks, duplicate samples, andequipment rinse blanks.
Prior Notification - at least 15 calendar days before any fieldwork or water quality samplecollection, the Permittee shall provide written notice to allow the Executive Secretary to
observe or split sample any or all seeps or springs.
7. DMT Performance Standards Monitoring - the Permittee shall perform technologyperformance monitoring in accordance with the currently approvedDMTMonitoringplanio
determine if DMT is effective in minimizing and controlling the release of contaminants
pursuant to the provisions of Parts LD. I and I.D.3 of this Permit, including, but not limited to
the following acrivities:
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 toensure compliance with the maximum wastewater elevation criteria mandated byCondition 10.3 of the License. Said measurements shall be made from a wastewater
level gauge or elevation survey to the nearest 0.01 foot.
Monthly Slimes Drain Water Irvel Monitoring: Cells 2 and,3 - the permittee shallmonitor and record monthly the depth to wastewater in the slimes drain access pipes asdescribed 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 saidmonitoring, the Permittee shall at each tailings cell:
l) Perform at least 12 separate slimes drain recovery tests at each disposal cell in each
calendar year that meet the requirements of part I.D.3,
2) Designate, operate, maintain, and preserve one water level measuring point at thecenterline of the slimes drain access pipe that has been surveyed and certified by a
Utah licensed engineer or land surveyor,
3) Make all slimes drain recovery head test (depth to fluid) measurements from the
same designated water level measuring point, and
4) Record and report all fluid depth measurements to the nearest 0.01 foot.
5) For Cell 3 these requirements shall apply upon initiation of tailings de-watering
operations.
0
s)
a)
b)
t9
ebu.r
Permit No. UGW370004
Weekly Wastewater I-evel Monitoring: Roberts Pond - the Permittee shall monitor and
record weekly wastewater levels at the Roberts Pond to determine compliance with theDMT operations standards in Part I.D.3. Said measurements shall be made in accordance
to the currently approved DMT Monitoring plan.
Weekly Feedstock Storage Area Inspection - the Permittee shall conduct weekly
inspections of all feedstock storage to: l)Confirm the bulk feedstock materials aremaintained 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) Feedstock Material Stored Outside the Feedstock Storage Area Inspections
1)Weekly Inspection - the Permittee will conduct weekly inspections to verify that each
feed material container complies with the requirements of part I.D.11
Hardened Surface Storage Area - in the event the Permittee constructs a hardened
surface storage area for feed materials, pursuant to Part I.D.1l, prior Executive
Secretary approval will be secured for the following:
i. Engineering Design and Specifications - in accordance with the requirements ofPart I.D.4, and
ii. Operation and Maintenance Plan.
0 Inspections of Tailing Cell and Pond Liner Systems - the Permittee shall inspect the linersystem at Tailing Cells l, 2, and 3 on a daily basis pursuant to the requirements ofSections 2.1 and 2.2 of the currently approved DMT Monitoring plan. The permittee
shall conduct visual inspections at the Roberts Pond on a weekly basis. In the event that
any liner defect or damage is identified during a liner system inspection, the permittee
shall immediately implement the currently approved Liner Maintenance provisions.
8. Cell 44 BAT Perfornance Standards Monitoring - in accordance with the currently approved
Cell 44 BAT Monitoring Operations and Maintenance Plan, the Permittee shall immediatelyimplement all monitoring and recordkeeping requirements therein. The Cell 44 BAimonitoring includes the following:
a) weekly Leak Detection System (LDS) Monitoring - including:
Leak Detection System Pumping and Monitoring Equipment - the permittee shallprovide continuous operation of the leak detection system pumping and monitoring
equipment, including, but not limited to, the submersible pump, pump controller,
head monitoring, and flow meter equipment approved by the Executive Secretary.Failure of any pumping or monitoring equipment not repaired and made fully
operational within 24-hours of discovery shall constitute failure of BAT and aviolation of this Permit.
Maximum Allowable Head - the Permittee shall measure the fluid head above thelowest point on the secondary flexible membrane by the use of procedures and
equipment approved by the Executive Secretary. Under no circumstance shall fluid
head in the leak detection system sump exceed a 1-foot level above the lowest point
in the lower flexible membrane liner on the cell floor. For purposes of compliance
monitoring this l-foot distance shall equate to 2.28 feet above the leak detection
20
c)
d)
2)
1)
2)
!pu.r
Permit No. UGW37O004
system transducer.
3) Maximum Allowable Daily LDS Flow Rates - the Permittee shall measure the
volume of all fluids pumped from the LDS. Under no circumstances shall the
average daily LDS flow volume exceed 24,160 gallons/day
4) 3-foot Minimum Vertical Freeboard Criteria - the Permittee shall operate and
maintain wastewater levels to provide a 3-foot Minimum of vertical freeboard in
Tailings Cell4A. Said measurements shall be made to the nearest 0.1 foot.
b) Slimes Drain Recovery Head Monitoring - immediately after the Permittee initiates
pumping conditions in the Tailings Cell 4,A, slimes drain system, monthly recovery head
tests and fluid level measurements will be made in accordance with the requirements of
Parts I.D.3 and LE.7(b) of this Permit and any plan approved by the Executive Secretary.
9. On-site Chemicals Inventory - the Permittee shall monitor and maintain a current inventory
of all chemicals used at the facility at rates equal to or greater than 100 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:
a. One surface impounded wastewater location at each of Tailings Cells 1, 3, and 4A,
b. One slimes drain wastewater access pipe at each of Tailings Cells 2, 3, and 4A,. For
Cells 3 and 4.A', this requirement shall apply immediately after initiation of de-watering
operations at these cells, and
c. One leak detection wastewater access pipe at Tailings Cell 4A.
d. All such sampling shall be conducted in August of each calendar year in compliance with
the currently approved White Mesa Uranium Mill Tailing and Slimes Drain Sampling
Program. Said annual monitoring shall include, but is not limited to:
1) Field Measurements - including: pH, temperature, and specific conductivity,
2) Water Quality Sampling and Analysis - the Permittee shall collect grab samples and
perform laboratory analysis of all:
i. Water quality parameters identified in Table 2 of this Permit, and
ii. Semi-volatile compounds identified in EPA Method 8270D.
3) Certified Laboratory Analysis - all laboratory analysis will be conducted by a Utah
certified laboratory.
4) Analytical Methods - all laboratory analysis shall be conducted using analyical
methods listed in the currently approved QAP pursuant to Part I.E.l of this Permit.
5) Minimum Detection Limits - all water quality analyses reported shall have a
minimum detection limit or reporting limit that is less than or equal to the respective:
2t
lpu* r
Permit No. UGW370004
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
m/L,1,000 mg/L, and I mglL, respectively, and
Lower limits of quantitation for groundwater for semi-volatile organic
compounds listed in Table 2 of EPA Method 8270D, Revision 4, datedFebruary,
2007.
Quality Control Samples - the Permittee will conduct quality control (QC) sampling
and analysis as a part of all tailings wastewater sampling, in accordance with the
requirements of Section 4.3 of the currently approved QAP; pursuant to Part I.E.1 of
this Permit. Said QC samples shall include, but are not limited to: trip blanks,
duplicate samples, and equipment rinse blanks.
Prior Notification - at least 30 calendar days before any water quality sample
collection, the Permittee shall provide written notice to allow the Executive Secretary
to observe or split sample any tailings cell, slimes drain, or leak detection
wastewaters.
Sample Omission - in the course of each annual sampling event, the Permittee shall
sample and analyze all tailings cell, slimes drain, and leak detection wastewater
sources identified in the currently approved Tailings and Slimes Drain Sampling
Program (pp. 1-3), or as required by this Permit, whichever is greater. The Permittee
shall not omit sampling of any of tailings cell wastewater source during said annual
event, without prior written approval from the Executive Secretary.
I 1. Groundwater Monitoring Modifications - before any modification of groundwater monitoring
or analysis procedures, methods, or equipment, the Permittee must obtain prior written
approval from the Executive Secretary.
F. RspoRrwc ReeurnewNTS - The following reporting procedures for routine and compliance
reports must be met.
1. Routine Groundwater Monitoring Reports - the Permittee shall submit quarterly monitoring
reports of field and laboratory analyses of all well monitoring and samples described in Parts
I.E.1, I.8.2,I.8.3, and I.E.5 of this Permit for Executive Secretary review and approval.
Reports shall be submitted according to the following schedule:
Table Schedule6. Groundwater Monitorin
Ouarter Period Due Date
First Januarv - March June I
Second April - June September I
Third Julv - September December 1
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:
6)
7)
8)
22
a) Field Data Sheets - or copies
time of well purging, date and
depth to groundwater before
eh*,
Permit No. UGW370004
thereof that provide the following: well name, date and
time of well sampling, type and condition of well pump,
purging and sampling, calculated well casing volume,
b)
c)
d)
e)
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, analyical method, date of analysis, counting error for radiologic analyses,
total cations and anions for inorganic analysis.
WaterTable ContourMap - which provides the location andidentityof 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
Plan. Said report shall verify the accuracy and reliability of the groundwater quality
compliance data, after evaluation of sample collection techniques and equipment, sample
handling and preservation, analyical methods used, etc.
Non-confofinance 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).
f) Electronic Data Files and Format - in addition to written results required for every
sampling report, the Permittee shall provide an electronic copy of all laboratory results
for groundwater quality monitoring conducted. Said electronic files shall consist of
Comma Separated Values (CSV) format, or as otherwise approved by the Executive
Secretary.
g) Time Concentration Plots - with each quarterly groundwater monitoring report the
Permittee shall submit time concentration plots for each monitoring well for the
following constituents: chloride, fluoride, sulfate, and uranium.
Routine DMT Performance Standards Monitoring Report - the Permittee shall provide
quarterly monitoring reports of all DMT performance standards monitoring required by Parts
I.D.3 and I.E.7 of this Permit. DMT monitoring shall be conducted in compliance with this
Permit and the currently approved DMT Monitoring Plan. When a liner repair is performed
at the Roberts Pond or any DMT impoundment, a Repair Report is required by the Liner
Maintenance Provisions. This Repair Report shall be included with the next quarterlyDMT
Report. Said monitoring reports and results shall be submitted for Executive Secretary
approval on the schedule provided in Table 6, above.
Routine Cell 4,{ BAT Perfofinance Standards Monitoring Reports - the Permittee shall
provide quarterly monitoring reports of all BAT performance standards monitoringrequired
by Part I E.8 of this Permit. BAT Monitoring at Cell 4,A. shall be conducted in compliance
with the currently approved BAT Monitoring Operations and Maintenance Plan. Said
23
2.
aJ.
4.
5.
6.
monitoring report and results shall
schedule provided in Table 6 above.
4A will include:
Oru,,,
Permit No. UGW370004
be submitted for Executive Secretary approval on the
At a minimum, reporting of BAT monitoring for Cell
a) LDS Monitoring - including:
1) Report on the operational status of the LDS pumping and monitoring equipment
during the quarter, including identification of any intervals of non-operational status
and repairs.
2) Measurement of the weekly fluid head at the lowest point of the secondary
membrane.
3) Measurement of the volume of all fluids pumped from the LDS.
b) Measurement of the weekly wastewater fluids elevation in the Cell 4,{ to determine
freeboard.
c) Slimes Drain Recovery Head Monitoring as per the requirements of Parts I.D.6) and
r.E.8(b).
DMT and BAT Performance Upset Reports - the Permittee shall report any non-compliance
with the DMT or BAT performance criteria of Part I.D in accordance with the requirements
of Part I.G.3 of this Permit.
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 apermit application or
in any report to the Executive Secretary, 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 Executive Secretary approval within 60 calendar
days of well completion, and at a minimum will include the following information:
a) Geologic Logs - that detail all soil and rock lithologies and physical properties of all
subsurface materials encountered during drilling. Said logs shall be prepared by a
Professional Geologist licensed by the State of Utah, or otherwise approved beforehand
by the Executive SecretarY.
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
24
Cu.,I
Permit No. UGW37O004
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) AquiferPermeabilityData - 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 forExecutive Secretary review and approval with the 3'd Quarter Routine
Groundwater Monitoring Report due on December I , of each calendar year. Said report shall
include, but is not limited to:
Field Measurement Results and Worksheets - for each sample collected that comply with
the requirements of Part I.F.1(a) of this Permit,
Laboratory Results - for each sample collected that comply with the requirements of Part
LF.l(b) of this Permit,
Water Table Contour Map - that includes groundwater elevations for each well at the
facility and the elevations of the phreatic surfaces observed at each of the seeps and
springs sampled. The contour map will include all water level data measurements from
seeps, springs, and monitoring wells at the site from the 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,
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 of the seeps and springs
shall be within 1 foot of the highest point of the saturated seepage face on the day of the
survey. This survey data must be obtained before any samples are collected.
Chemicals Inventory Report - at the time of Permit renewal the Permittee shall submit a
report to update the facilities chemical inventory report required by Part I.H.1. Said report
shall provide all inventory information gathered pursuant to Part I.E.9.
Tailings Cell Wastewater Quality Reports - all annual wastewater quality sampling and
analysis required by Part I.E.10 shall be reported to the Executive Secretary with the 3'd
Quarter groundwater quality report due on December l, of each calendar year. Said report
shall include:
a)
b)
c)
8.
9.
25
ebu.r
Permit No. UGW3700O4
a) Data evaluation and interpretation of all wastewater quality samples collected,
b) All information required by Part I.F.1(a), (b), (d), and (e) of this Permit, and
c) For slimes drain samples, the Permittee shall report depth to wastewater measurements
from the water level measurement point. Said wastewater level shall be measured
immediately before sample collection.
10. Revised Hydrogeologic Report - pursuant to Part IV.D of this Permit, and at least 180
calendar days prior to Permit expiration, the Permittee shall submit forExecutive Secretary
approval a revised hydrogeologic report for the facility and surrounding area. Said report
shall provide a comprehensive update and evaluation of:
a) Local hydrogeologic conditions in the shallow aquifer, including, but not limited to:
local geologic conditions; time relationships and distribution of shallow aquifer head
measurements from facility wells and piezometers; local groundwater flow directions;
and distribution of aquifer permeability and average linear groundwater velocity across
the site, and
b) Well specific groundwater quality conditions measured at facility monitoring wells for all
groundwater monitoring parameters required by this Permit, including, but not limited to:
temporal contaminant concentrations and trends from each monitoring well; statistical
tests for normality of each contaminant and well, including univariate or equivalent tests;
calculation of the mean concentration and standard deviation for each well and
contaminant.
11. Annual Slimes Drain Recovery Head Report - on or before March 1 of each year the
Permittee shall submit forExecutive Secretary approval an annual slimes drain recovery head
report for Tailings Cells 2 and 3. Said report shall conform to the requirements of Part
I.D.3(b), I.E.7(b), and tr.G of this Permit, and:
a) Provide the individual monthly slimes drain recovery head monitoring data for the
previous calendar year, including, but not limited to: date and time for the start and end
of recovery test, initial water level, final depth to stable water level and equivalent
recovery water level elevation.
b) Calculate the average slimes drain recovery head for the previous calendar year.
c) Include a time series chart to show trends of the monthly recovery water level elevations
at each slimes drain.
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.
26
G*,
Permit No. UGW370004
G. Our on Colr,pt-taNcs Srarus
1. Accelerated Monitoring Status - is required if the concentration of a pollutant in any
compliance monitoring sample exceeds a GWCL in Table 2 of the PermiL the facility shall
then:
a) Notify the Executive Secretary in writing within 30 calendar days of receipt of data, and
b) Immediately initiate accelerated sampling of the pollutant as follows:
1) Quarterly Baseline Monitoring Wells - for wells defined by Part I.E.l(b) the
Permittee shall initiate monthly monitoring.
2) Semi-annual Baseline Monitoring Wells - for wells defined by Part I.E.1(c) the
Permittee shall initiate quarterly monitoring.
Said accelerated monitoring shall continue at the frequencies defined above until the
compliance status of the facility can be determined by the Executive Secretary.
Violation of Permit Limits - out-of-compliance status exists when the concentration of a
pollutant in two consecutive samples from a compliance monitoring point exceeds a GWCL
in Table 2 of this Permit.
Failure to Maintain DMT or BAT Required by Permit
a) Permittee to Provide Information - in the event that the Permittee fails to maintain DMT
or BAT or otherwise fails to meet DMT or BAT standards as required by the Permit, the
Permittee shall submit to the Executive Secretary a notification and description of the
failure according to R317-6-6.16(CX1). Notification shall be given orally within 24-
hours of the Permittee's discovery of the failure of DMT or BAT, and shall be followed
up by written notification, including the information necessary to make a determination
under R317-6-6.16(C)(2), within five calendar days of the Permittee's discovery of the
failure of best available technology.
The Executive Secretary shall use the information provided underR3ll-6-6.16.C(l) and
any additional information provided by the Permittee to determine whether to initiate a
compliance action against the Permittee for violation of Permit conditions. A
compliance action shall not be initiated, if the Executive Secretary determines that the
Permittee has met the standards for an affirmative defense, as specified in R317-6-
6.16(CX3).
Affirmative Defense - in the event a compliance action is initiated against the Permittee
for violation of Permit conditions relating to best available technology or DMT, the
Permittee may affirmatively defend against that action by demonstrating the following:
1) The Permittee submitted notification according to R317-6-6.13,
2) The failure was not intentional or caused by the Permittee's negligence, either in
action or in failure to act,
3) The Permittee has taken adequate measures to meet Permit conditions in a timely
manner or has submitted to the Executive Secretary, for the Executive Secretary's
approval, an adequate plan and schedule for meeting Permit conditions, and
4) The provisions of UCA L9-5-107 have not been violated.
2.
3.
b)
c)
27
4. Facility Out of Compliance Status -
required:
G*r
Permit No. UGW370OO4
if the facility is out of compliance, the following is
a) The Permittee shall notify the Executive Secretary of the out of compliance status within
24-hours after detection of that status, followed by a written notice within 5 calendar days
of the detection.
b) The Permittee shall continue accelerated sampling pursuant to Part I.G.1, unless the
Executive Secretary determines that other periodic sampling is appropriate, until the
facility is brought into compliance.
The Permittee shall prepare and submit within 30 calendar days to the Executive
Secretary a plan and a time schedule for assessment of the sources, extent and potential
dispersion of the contamination, and an evaluation of potential remedial action to restore
and maintain groundwater quality to insure that Permit limits will not be exceeded at the
compliance monitoring point and that DMT or BAT will be reestablished.
The Executive Secretary may require immediate implementation of the currently
approved contingency plan in order to regain and maintain compliance with the Permit
limit standards at the compliance monitoring point or to reestablish DMT or BAT as
defined in the Permit.
Where it is infeasible to reestablish DMT or BAT as defined in the Permit, the Permittee
may propose an alternative DMT or BAT for approval by the Executive Secretary.
H. CorvpuANCE Scnnoul-s Rrqum.rl,mNrs. The Permittee will comply with the schedules as
described and summarized below:
1. On-site Chemicals Inventory Report - the Permittee shall complete a historical review, and
conduct an inventory of all chemical compounds or reagents stored, used, or currently in use
at the facility. Said report shall include:
a) Identification of all chemicals used in the milling and milling related processes at White
Mesa, and
b) Determination of the total volumes currently in use and historically used, as data is
available.
At the time of Permit renewal, the Permittee shall submit an updated inventory report
pursuant to Part I.F.8.
2. Infiltration and Contaminant Transport Modeling Work Plan and Report - the Permittee shall
submit for Executive Secretary approval an infiltration and contaminant transport modeling
report that demonstrates the long-term ability of the tailings cells cover system to adequately
contain and control tailings contaminants and protect nearby groundwater quality of the
uppermost aquifer. Said report shall demonstrate how the tailings cell engineering design
and specifications will comply with the minimum performance requirements of PartI.D.6 of
this Permit. The Permittee shall submit an infiltration and contaminant modeling for
Executive Secretary approval, that:
a) Identifies all applicable and pertinent historic studies and modeling reports relevant to
tailings cell cover design and tailings cell system performance.
c)
d)
e)
28
b)
lpu.tr
Permit No. UGW37O004
Determines and justifies all information necessary for infiltration and contaminant
transport modeling, including but not limited to representative input values for vadose
zone and aquifer soil-water partitioning (IQ) coefficients, tailings source term
concentrations, tailings waste leach rates, vadose zone and aquifer groundwater
velocities, vadose zone and aquifer dispersivity, contaminant half-life or other rates of
decay, etc. In the event that any required information is not currently available, the
Permittee may select conservative assumptions for use in the required infiltration and
contaminant transport models.
Identifies and adequately describes all computer models used to simulate long-term
performance of the tailings cells cover system. All predictive models used shall be
publicly available computer codes that adequately represent field characteristics and
physical processes at the tailings disposal site. Said description will also include specific
information on model design, including, but not limited to: governing equations and their
applicability to site conditions, grid design, duration of simulation, and selection of time
steps.
Determines the conceptual model used and justifies why it is representative or
conservative of actual field conditions at the site. Said conceptual model will identify the
physical domain(s) and geometries simulated including the tailings cell design and
construction, all boundary and initial conditions assigned in the model(s), and the
shallow aquifer locations where future potential contaminant concentrations have been
predicted.
Justifies how the infiltration and contaminant transport problem has been adequately
conceptualized, planned, and executed to demonstrate compliance with the requirements
of Part I.D.6 of this Permit.
0 Provides, describes and justifies the following:
1) Model Results - including electronic input and output files from all infiltration,
groundwater flow and contaminant transport models used the report'
Model Calibration - including description of results and efforts used to demonstrate
how the model adequately reproduced field measured heads, flows, and contaminant
concentrations.
Steady State Conditions - including a demonstration that the models achieved a
steady state condition during the simulation. This includes, but is not limited to
disclosure, evaluation and justification of water and mass balance error values
reported by the models.
Sensitivity Analyses - including description of various model simulations run and
evaluated to define the range of model uncertainty. Such uncertainty includes, but is
not limited to: boundary and initial conditions, model input values, and spatial and
temporal distribution of model parameters used in the problem domain.
Post-model Audit Plan - including plans to revisit the modeling effort at some future
time to re-assess its ability to represent site characteristics and predict long-term
performance of tailings cell design and construction, and groundwater protection.
The Permittee shall complete all modeling in accordance with the requirements of PartI.H.2
and submit a final report forExecutive Secretary approval. In the final report, the Permittee
29
c)
d)
e)
2)
3)
4)
s)
Orun,
Permit No. UGW37O0O4
may include supplemental information to justify modification of certain Permit requirements,
including, but not limited to: the number and types of groundwater compliance monitoring
parameters, tailings cell cover system engineering design and construction specifications,
tailings cell operational requirements, etc. In the event the Executive Secretary requires
additional information, the Permittee will provide all requested information within a time
frame approved by the Executive Secretary. Upon Executive Secretary approval of the final
infiltration and contaminant transport report, the Reclamation Plan may be modified to
accommodate necessary changes to protect public health and the environment.
3 . Plan for Evaluation of Deep Supply Well WW- 2 - the purpose of this plan is to evaluate the
annular casing seal in water supply well WW-2, and to ensure adequate well casing and
annular seals, in compliance with the regulations of the Utah State Engineer (UAC R655-4-
9), with special emphasis on creating both a physical barrier and hydraulic isolation between
the shallow unconfined and the deep confined aquifers.
On or before January 31,2012, the Permittee shall:
Conduct an investigation of water supply well WW-2 to verify that the casing and
annular seal is intact and creates both a physical barrier and hydraulic isolation between
the shallow unconfined and the deep confined aquifers, said investigation shall include
one or more of the following investigation techniques performed in accordance with
applicable guidance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: well casing video
logs, cement bond logs, and/or temperature logs,
Show that the well casing and annular seal have physical and hydraulic integrityto isolate
the two aquifers mentioned above. In the event that hydraulic isolation of the two
aquifers is uncertain or unsubstantiated for any reason, the Permittee shall repairthe well
casing and annular seal(s) to provide well construction that complies with the regulations
of thJ Utah State Engineer (UAC R655-4-9). After such repairs are completed, the
Permittee will conduct repeat testing using the investigation techniques required under
Part I.H.3(a) to demonstrate existence of the required hydraulic isolation, and
Submit a written report for Executive Secretary approval to document the investigation
and its findings, and any well repair activities. Said report shall be certified by a Utah-
licensed Professional Engineer or Geologist.
4. New Decontamination Pad - the Permittee shall not use the New Decontamination Pad until
the follpwing conditions are satisfied:
a. Within 30 calendar days of issuance of the Permit, the Permittee shall submit an updated
DMT Monitoring Plan for Executive Secretary approval that includes but is not limited
to the following:
1) The manner of weekly inspections the New Decontamination Pad, including the leak
detection system and concrete integrity of the decontamination pad.
a.
b.
c.
2) Within 30 calendar days of issuance of
updated Contingency Plan that clarifies
found within the leak detection system
concrete pad.
3) Annual Inspection - the New Decontamination Pad will be taken out of service and
inspected annually during the second quarter, to ensure integrity o,f the wash pad's
exposed concrete surface. If discrepancies are identified [i.e. crack in the concrete
the Permit, the Permittee shall submit an
what steps will be taken if there is water
and if discrepancies are observed on the
30
C*,
Permit No. UGW37O004
with greater than 1/8 inch separation (width) 9r any significant deterioration or
damale of the pad surface], repairs shall be made prior to resuming the use of the
facilitly. The inipection findings, any repairs required, and repairs completed shall be
included in the in the 2nd quartlr DMT Monitoring Report due September 1, of each
calendar year.
b. The Executive Secretary approves the engineering design drawings for the liner and leak
detection system, before they are constructed.
c. The Permittee shall perform a hydrostatic test that verifies that the steel liner and leak
detection system performs in accordance with the approved drawings and will provide
the test results within 30 calendar days after completion of the test. The Permittee shall
provide at least 10 calendar days notice prior to performing the hydrostatic test to allow a
DRC inspector to be Present.
d. The Executive Secretary approves all the As-Built drawings for the Decontamination
Pad.
5. Existing Decontamination Pad - within 30 calendar days of issuance of the Permit, DUSA
shall perform the following:
a. Submit As-Built drawings of the Existing Decontamination Pad (EDP).
b. Submit an updated BAT/DMT Monitoring Plan for Executive Secretary approval
describing monitoring details and DMT Inspection items for the Existing
Decontamination Pad.
c. Annual Inspection - the EDP will be taken out of service and inspected annually during
the second quarter, to ensure integrity of the steel tank. The inspection findings, any
repairs required, and repairs "o-pl"t"d shall be included in the in the 2'd Quarter DMT
Monitoring Report due September 1, of each calendar year'
31
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
(}*o
Permit No. UGW370004
PART tr. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
A. RspnssENTATrvE SRIeI-nvc. Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements
established under Part I shall be representative of the monitored activity.
ANeryucer Pnocroungs. 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.
PBNerrres FoR TAMpEnnrG. The Act provides that any person who falsifies, tampers with, or
knowingly renders inaccurate, any monitoring device or method required to be maintained under
this Permit shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 per violation,
or by imprisonment for not more than six months per violation, or by both.
RBpoRrnqc oF MoNrroRrNG RESULTS. Monitoring results obtained during reporting periods
specified in the Permit, shall be submitted to the Executive Secretary, Utah Division of Water
Quality at the following address no later than the date specified following the completed
reporting period:
Attention: Compliance and Monitoring Program
State of Utah
Division of Water Quality
Department of Environmental Quality
salt Lake City, utah 84114-4870
The quarterly due dates for reporting are: June 1, September 1, December 1, and March l
CorwrreNcE ScmDULES. Reports of compliance or noncompliance with, or any progress
reports on interim and final requirements contained in any Compliance Schedule of this Permit
shall be submitted no later than 14 calendar days following each schedule date.
AppruoNar- Momronwc By rHE PrRtwrrss. 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 andreporting of the data
submitted. Such increased frequency shall also be indicated.
G. Reconps CoNTEI.T-ts.
1. Records of monitoring information shall include:
The date, exact place, and time of sampling, observations, or measurements:
The individual(s) who performed the sampling, observations, or measurements;
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,
0 The results of such analyses.
H. RrrsunoN oF Rrconos. The Permittee shall retain records of all monitoring information,
a)
b)
c)
32
eb*,
Permit No. UGW37OO04
including all calibration and maintenance records and copies of all reports required by this
Permit, and records of all data used to complete the application for this Permit, for a period of at
least five years from the date of the sample, measurement, report or application. This period may
be extended by request of the Executive Secretary at any time.
I. Noucs oFNoNCoMPLIANCE RspoRrnqc.
1. The Permittee shall verbally report any noncompliance which may endangerpublic health or
the environment as soon as possible, but no later than 24-hours from the time the Permittee
first became aware of the circumstances. The report shall be made to the Utah Department of
Environmental Quality 24-hour number, [phone], or to the Division of Water Quality,
Ground Water Protection Section at [phone], during normal business hours (8:00 am
- 5:00 pm Mountain Time).
2. A written submission shall also be provided to the Executive Secretary within five calendar
days of the time that the Permittee becomes aware of the circumstances. The written
submission shall contain:
a) A description of the noncompliance and its cause;
b) The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times;
c) The estimated time noncompliance is expected to continue if it has not been corrected;
and,
d) Steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the
noncompliance.
3. Reports shall be submitted to the addresses in Part II.D, Reporting of Monitoring Results.
Orrmn NoNcorwltANCE RrpoRrnlc. Instances of noncompliance not required to be reported
within 5 calendar days, shall be reported at the time that monitoring reports for Part tr.D are
submitted.
INspecuoN AND ENTRv. The Permittee shall allow the Executive Secretary, or an authorized
representative, upon the presentation of credentials and other documents as may be required by
law, to:
1. Enter upon the Permittee's premises where a regulated facility or activity is located or
conducted, or where records must be kept under the conditions of the Permit;
2. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must be kept under the
conditions of this Permit;
3. Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including monitoring and control
equipment), practices, or operations regulated or required under this Permit; and,
4. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purpose of assuring Permit compliance or as
otherwise authorized by the Act, any substances or parameters at any location.
J.
K.
JJ
A.
B.
eburt ru
Permit No. UGW37OO04
PART Itr. COMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITIES
Dury ro Corrapr-y. The Permittee must comply with all conditions of this Permit. Any Permit
noncompliance constitutes a violation of the Act and is grounds for enforcement action; for
permit termination, revocation and re-issuance, or modification; or for denial of a permit renewal
application. The Permittee shall give advance notice to the Executive Secretary of the Division
of Water Quality of any planned changes in the permitted facility or activity which may result in
noncompliance with Permit requirements.
prNerrrgs FoR VToLATToNS oF PERMIT CoNoIuoNs. 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 g10,000 per day of such violation. Any person who willfully or negligently violates
Permit conditions is subject to a fine not exceeding $25,000 per day of violation. Any person
convicted under Section 19-5-115 of the Act a second time shall be punished by a fine not
exceeding $50,000 per day. Nothing in this Permit shall be construed to relieve the Permittee of
the civil or criminal penalties for noncompliance.
C. Nsep ro HALT oR REDUCE Acrrvrry Nor A DEFENsB. 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. Dury ro MrrrcAre. 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. PnopeR OpBRerroN AND MATNTENANCE. The Permittee shall at all times properly operate and
maintain all facilities and systems of treatment andcontrol (andrelated appurtenances) which are
installed or used by the Permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions of this Permit.
Proper operation and maintenance also includes adequate laboratory controls and quality
assurance procedures. This provision requires the operation of back-up or auxiliary facilities or
similar systems which are installed by a Permittee only when the operation is necessary to
achieve compliance with the conditions of the Permit.
34
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
lhu,trv
Permit No. UGW370OO4
PART IV. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
A. preN'reD CgeNcfs. The Permittee shall give notice to the Executive Secretary as soon as
possible of any planned physical alterations or additions to the permitted facility. Notice is
iequired when the alteration or addition could significantly change the nature of the facility or
increase the quantity of pollutants discharged.
Ax-rrcparep NoNcorwrANCE. The Permittee shall give advance notice of any planned changes
in the permitted facility or activity which may result in noncompliance with Permit requirements.
penrrnr AcTISNS. 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 RnAppLy. 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 PnovrDE INF9RMATT9N. The Permittee shall furnish to the Executive Secretary, within
a reasonable time, any information which the Executive Secretary may request to determine
whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and reissuing, or terminating this Permit, or to
determine compliance with this Permit. The Permittee shall also furnish to the Executive
Secretary, upon request, copies of records required to be kept by this Permit.
Orrnn IxnonrrlauoN. When the Permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant
facts in a permit application, or submitted incorrect information in a permit application or any
report to the Executive Secretary, it shall promptly submit such facts or information.
G. SrcNeroRyREeurREMENTS. All applications, reports orinformation submittedtotheExecutive
Secretary shall be signed and certified.
1. All permit applications shall be signed as follows:
a) For a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer;
b) For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner or the proprietor,
respectively.
c) For a municipality, State, Federal, or other public agency: by either a principal executive
officer or ranking elected official.
Z. All reports required by the Permit and other information requested by the Executive
Secretary shall be signed by a person described above or by a duly authorized representative
ofthat person. A person is a duly authorized representative only if:
a) The authori zation is made in writing by a person described above and submitted to the
Executive SecretarY, and,
b) The authorization specified either an individual or a position having responsibility for the
35
lbun,,
Permit No. UGW370004
overall operation of the regulated facility or activity, such as the position of plant
manager, operator of a well or a well field, superintendent, position of equivalent
responsibility, or an individual or position having overall responsibility for
environmental matters for the company. (A duly authorized representative may thus be
either a named individual or any individual occupying a named position).
3. Changes to Authorization. If an authoization under Part IV.G.2. is no longer accurate
because a different individual or position has responsibility for the overall operation of the
facility, a new authorization satisfying the requirements of Part IV.G.2 must be submitted to
the Executive Secretary prior to or together with any reports, information, or applications to
be signed by an authorized representative.
4. Certification. Any person signing a document under this section shall make the following
certification:
"I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared
under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that
qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my
inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly
responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant
penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and
imprisonment for knowing violations. "
PeNerrrps nonFersnrcATroN oFREpoRTs. 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 repofis 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.
Aveu-asn-rry oF REroRTS. Except for data determined to be confidential by the Permittee, all
reports prepared in accordance with the terms of this Permit shall be available for public
inspection at the offices of the Executive Secretary. As required by the Act, permit applications,
permits, effluent data, and groundwater quality data shall not be considered confidential.
PRopsRry Rrcnrs. 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.
SgvsRasnrry. 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. TReNsrrns. This Permit may be automatically transferred to a new Permittee if:
1. The current Permittee notifies the Executive Secretary at least 30 calendar days in advance of
H.
I.
J.
K.
the proposed transfer date;
36
G*rv
Permit No. UGW370004
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,
The Executive Secretary does not notify the existing Permittee and the proposed new
Permittee of his or her intent to modify, or revoke and reissue the permit. If this notice is not
received, the transfer is effective on the date specified in the agreement mentioned in
paragraph 2 above.
M. Srare Lews. Nothing in this Permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal
action or relieve the Permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, penalties established pursuant
to any applicable state law or regulation under authority preserved by Section 19-5-l 15 of the
Act.
N. RBopexen PRovrsroNs. This Permit may be reopened and modified (following proper
administrative procedures) to include the appropriate limitations and compliance schedule, if
necessary, if one or more of the following events occurs:
1 If new ground water standards are adopted by the Board, the Permit may be reopened and
modified to extend the terms of the Permit or to include pollutants covered by new standards.
The Permittee may apply for a variance under the conditions outlined in R317-6-6.4(D).
2. Changes have been determined in background groundwater quality.
3. The Executive Secretary determines permit modification is necessary to protect human health
or the environment.
2.
-J.
37
bt>c 2OlC -Oor3ro
Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit No. UGW370004
Denison Mines (USA) Corp
White Mesa Uranium Mill' San Juan CountY, Utah
January 20,2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Public Comments
David C. Frydenlund (DUSA - Vice President Regulatory Affairs and Counsel): Pages 2 - ll
Scott Clow (Environmental Programs Director - Ute Mountain Ute Tribe): Pages: 12 - 15
Sarah Fields (Uranium Watch/Glen Canyon Group/Sierra Clublliving Rivers): Pages 16 - 25
Additional Permit Modifi cations :Pages 26 - 27
Figure 1
FIGURES
White Mesa Site Map of the Nitrate and Chloride Plumes and
Groundwater Contours for the I't Quarter, 2009 (March) Sampling
Event
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
Attachment 5
ATTACHMENTS
Public Comments for the DUSA Permit Modification
Transcript of Verbal Comments Received at the October 7,2009
Public Meeting
January 5, 2010 DUSA GW Permit Final - Redline/Strikeout Version
Showing Additional Changes to the Permit After the Public Comment
Period
November 3,2009 Well MW-24 Hydraulic Testing Results
January 11,2009 DRC Well MW-24 Memorandum
icipation Su
Modification to the
o
ummarPublic Participation S
January 20,2009
Introduction
The purpose of this document is to summarize public comments received by the Utah
Division of Radiation Control (DRC) regarding the Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (hereafter
DUSA) Uranium Mill facility at White Mesa, Utah. Three sets of written comments were
received from the public during the comment period that ended on Thursday, October 8,
2009 (see Attachment 1). In addition, a transcript of verbal public comments received during
a public meeting held on October 7,2009 in Blanding Utah is also included (see Attachment
2). Each of these comments are listed below in italics, followed by a DRC response.
Comments from Mr. David C. Frydenlund, Vice President
Regulatory Affairs and Counsel, on October 8, 2009
Re: Public Notice of a Modification to the Ground Water QuahA Discharge Permit No.
UGW370004for the White Mesa Mill - Comments of Denison Mines (aSA) Corp.
Dear Mr. Finerfrock:
Reference is made to the Public Notice (the "Notice") of a modification to the ground water
quality discharge permit No. UGW370004 (the "Permit) for the Wite Mesa uranium mill
(the "Mill") operated by Denison Mines (USA) Corp, ("Denison") that was published by the
Co- Executive Secretary of the Utah Water Quality Board (the "Executive Secretary" ) on
September 2,2009.
Denison has the following comments on the draf-t modified Permit that was published with
the Notice:
l. Part I.B.
The latest data used for the October 2007 Revised Background Report for Existing Wells was
June 2007, and the latest data usedfor the April 2008 Revised Background Report for New
Wells was December 2007. Therefore, it would be more accurate to change the first part of
that sentence to read:
"based on groundwater samples collected through June 2007 for existing wells MW-L, MW-
2, MW-3, MW-s, MW-L1, MW-12, MW-14, MW-L5, MW-17, MW-18, MW-19, MW-26 and
MW-32 and through December 2007 for new wells MW-3A, MW-23,
MW 24, MW-25, MW-27, MW-28, MW-29, MW-30 and MW-31, pursuant to ..."
t
mmaryPublic Participation Su
January 20,2009
DRC Response: Substantive Comment.
Agreed. The proposed wording for Part I.B. is a more accurate statement at Part I.B. than the
September 2,2009 Draft version of the Permit. Therefore, the Permit has been changed
accordingly.
2. Part 1.D.6(c)
As discussedwrth Division of Radiation Control ("DRC") stffi Denison cannot commit to
reducing the maximum head in Cell 4A to 1 foot above the FML, nor to commit to a time
frame of 6.4 years to achieve a specific head level. The I foot maximum head and 6.4 year
time frame reflect the design criteria usedfor the slimes drain system in Cell 4A. These
design criteria are theoretical and are based on a number of assumptions and estimates.
Denison believes these assumptions and estimates to be reasonable and conservative and
that the design criteria are appropriate for Cell4A. Denison's decision to proceed on this
basis was approved by the Executive Secretary. However, Denison cannot guarantee that the
system will perform in the future exactly as designed. This attempts to impose a level of
accuracy that is unrealistic and that is beyond Denison's control. In order to address these
issues, we propose that Part LD.6(c) be revised to read as follows:
c) Slimes Drain Monthly and Annual Average Recovery Head Criteria - after the Permittee
initiates pumping conditions in the slimes drain layer in Cell4A, the Permittee will provide
1) continuous operation of the existing dewatering system, reasonable maintenance
excepted; and 2) continuous declining fluid heads In the slimes drain layer, In a manner
equivalent to the requirements found in Part 1.D.3(b) until such time as the maximum head in
the tailings (as measured from the lowest point of the upper flexible membrane liner) is 1.0
feet or less, or otherwise approaches its asymptotic limit as approved by the Executive
Secretary.
DRC Response: Substantive Comment
We respectfully disagree that dewatering of Cell 4,A. is outside the control of DUSA.
Multiple opportunities have been available to DUSA to ensure rapid tailings de-watering at
Cell 44. This is borne out by the discussion below regarding engineering design review,
construction, and operational practices.
Orieinal Slimes Drain Desiqn Review - in a May 15,2OO7 "Analysis of Slimes Drain"
document, DUSA consultant Geosyntec Consultants showed in Table 3 that the design of the
Cell 4A slimes drain would remove the tailings solution from Cell 4A in 5.45 years. The
slimes drain system would be activated once Cell 4A is completely full of tailings.
In a May 22,2OOl Slimes Drain Memorandum by URS, the DRC agreed that the 5.5 year
calculation appeared to be correct assuming the slimes drain did not clog. URS stated that its
primary concern with the proposed slimes drain design was:
o
mmaryPublic Participation Su
January 20,2009
1. "Inadequate capacity of the drain system to remove the tailings solution in a timely
manner. Specifically for the current design, inadequate surface area available to
allow for timely removal (Jlow) of solution out of the tailings and into the strip
drains.
2. The lack of adequate filter blanket material between the tailings and the strip drains,
which would result in the clogging of the drains."
URS then recommended that: " ... the slimes drain design should incorporate a continuous
sand drainage/filter layer that will both alleviate issues with permeability uncertainty, and
drainage filtration. This layer shall be properly designed to account for the manufocturer's
recommendations, the anticipated gradation of the tailings, and include measures to
minimize the impact of the slurry discharge. A typical filter/drainage layer of this type is 12-
inches thick. However, considering that it will be submerged, and the potential for
disturbance during slurry placement, we recommend this layer be increased to l9-inches."
In a June 5,2007 conference call with the DUSA and Geosyntec these two concerns were
discussed. Originally, the Cell 4A strip-drains were not designed to have a sand filter cover.
During the call, URS staff mentioned that a specific sand cover was the standard practice
recommended by the strip-drain manufacturer. DUSA suggested that it could completely
cover the strip-drains with sand bags. The DRC mentioned that the May 22,2007 URS
Technical Memorandum contained specifications for the sand covering and that the sand was
nearly free of fines. DUSA thought that specific bags, containing the specified sand should
meet the requirements.
The use of a contiguous sand drainage blanket was then discussed. The DRC expressed
concern that the tailings permeability could be much lower than DUSA had estimated, due to
its high fines content (i.e. 4O-percent passing the no. 325 sieve). Consequently, the tailings
could have an extremely slow drainage rate in the lower depths during final dewatering of
the cell. DUSA acknowledged their estimated permeability for the tailings, was based on
gradation data for average soil textures in available literature, and that no actual permeability
test data was available for the DUSA tailings. DUSA added that to conduct lab permeability
testing of the tailings may not provide representative data for many reasons. The DRC
agreed, and added that such uncertainty is muted if the slimes drain system incorporated the
contiguous sand filter layer across the floor of Cell 44.
DUSA expressed concern that building out a platform of sand for a drainage blanket
increased the risk of damage to the FML liner and it was a risk they were not willing to take.
The DRC believed the risk was low, because the design and construction practice is used
commonly at many solid waste landfills.
To compromise, the DRC stated it would require that before license closure, DUSA would
need to reduce the static head on the liner to less than 1-foot before the license could be
terminated. The head would be measured at the lowest point on the FML, through the slimes
o
ummaryPublic Participation S
January 20,2009
drain access pipe. This approach would require periodic head measurements in the slimes
drain to determine when the acceptable l-foot static head condition had been met by the
licensee.
On June 19,2007 DUSA submitted an acceptable sandbag filter design, to be placed over the
strip drains at the bottom of Cell 4,A,. The DRC conditionally approved the design of the Cell
4,A' Relining Project on June 25,2007 . Geosynthetic liner installation for the project began
on October 9,2007.
Construction Inspections and Revised Slimes Drain Design - on June 20,2008 during an
inspection conducted by DRC staff, it was observed that DUSA failed to completely cover
the strip drains with the sandbags. Many of the sandbags were overfilled and left gaps that
would expose the strip drain material to the tailings solids. As a result, the sandbag
placement did not conform to the original design drawing, which show the bags completely
covering the strip-drains. DUSA was notified of the problem by e-mail on June 25,2008.
Mr. Greg Corcoran of Geosyntec responded to the e-mail the same day. Mr. Corcoran
thought the small gap at the sides of strip composite didn't cause any problems with the
intent of the slimes drain design. He also believed that "the sand bags would settle a bit
more once the liquid loading is in the cell."
The DRC disagreed. The DRC responded by e-mail on July l, 2008. The DRC did not
agree with the claim that when the cell is loaded the sandbags will settle and the problem will
resolve itself, because there will be no practical means available to verify this claim. The
DRC required DUSA to do either one of the following:
"Provide revised calculations showing the new time requiredfor completion of the
drainage of the tailings through the slimes drain, at the time of cell closure. This is
critical, given the existing configuration which departs from the approved design, in
which portions of the strip-drain would now be compromised by invasion of the strip-
drains by slimes material, and the corresponding reduction of flow into the collection
pipe, or
Provide proposed design or field construction adjustments to prevent this problem,
with corresponding calculations as necessary to demonstrate the effictiveness of the
adjustments."
On July 2,2007 Geosyntec on the behalf of DUSA submitted a revised calculation for the
Cell 4,A' drainage time. Taking the sand bag coverage area issue into account, Geosyntec
calculated a revised drainage time of 6.4 years.
In an August 18, 2008 DRC RFI Letter, the DRC said it was willing to accept the increased
tailings de-watering time (6.4 years) as part of the approved design basis for Cell 4,{. The
August 18, 2008 RFI also stated that the slimes drain perforrnance standard in the Permit
would have to be revised to make it consistent with the July 2,2008 Geosyntec submittal.
t.
2.
o
mmaryPublic Participation Su
January 20,2009
Therefore, the DRC proposed in the August 18, 2008 RFI the following language for the
Permit:
" c) Slimes Drain Monthly and Annual Average Recovery Head Criteria - after the
Permittee initiates pumping conditions in the slimes drain layer in Cell4A, the
Permittee will provide: llcontinuous 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 niaxlm
static head of 1.0 fept in the titilings (4s measured-from the li:west Point of LlPPer
llexible mernhrarre liner') " [emphasis added]
This same language is the exact wording used in the September 2,2009 Draft version of the
Permit. This same wording was also included in the Draft version of the Permit e-mailed to
DUSA on April 20,2009. Until the DRC received your comments on October 8,2009,
DUSA had not voiced any concern with these new slimes drain requirements.
Operational Practices - Cell 44 has been designed as a closed loop system, where fluids are
held in the impoundment and leave only thru evaporation, removal by pumping, or seepage
losses. It is anticipated that seepage losses will be minimal due to the double high density
polyethylene (HDPE) liner system. Removal by pumping is within DUSA's control and can
te withdrawn from more than one location, including: surface accumulation of fluids on the
tailings, liquids held in the tailings and slimes drain network, or fluids found in the leak
deteciion system. At the time of cell closure, DUSA will have the opportunity to limit the
accumulation of fluids on the tailings surface by processes such as: cessation of tailings
wastewater discharge and/or diversion to other holding structures, enhanced evaporation,
removal of fluids by pumping, construction of temporary cover to prevent stormwater
contact with the tailings (and subsequent infiltration), etc. Removal of those fluids held in
storage by the tailings can and will be done by pumping both the slimes drain and leak
detection systems.
It is imperative that DUSA make good faith efforts in its Cell 4A. dewatering process, in
order to accelerate the time that impoundment is ready for cover system construction and to
hasten isolation of the tailings from the environment. It is also important to minimize the
volume of fluids that will be held in the embankment and could potentially be lost via
seepage; in order to protect local groundwater resources. For these reasons, the 6.4 yeat
dewatering interval was set as a BAT performance standard in Part I.D.6( c) of the Permit.
However, in the event that DUSA is unable to meet the 6.4 year dewatering time, it can
defend itself from possible enforcement action by meeting the provisions of affirmative
defense, as outlined in the Permit in Part I.G.3.
As described above, the original approved calculated drainage time for Cell 4,{ was 5'45
years. After some construction difficulties, due to improper sandbag placement, DUSA
proposed a new drainage time of 6.4 years. The DRC accepted this design change and
approved of the new drainage time of 6.4 years for Cell 4,{. Operational practices are and
will be available to DUSA to assist in meeting this BAT performance standard of 6.4 years.
o
ummaryPublic Participation S
January 20,2009
Therefore, the proposed wording atPart I.D.6(c) in the September 2,2009 Draft version of
the Permit will stand.
3. Part 1.E.6(h)
Paragraph 3.0 of the Mill's Sampling Planfor Seeps and Springs in the Vicinity of the White
Mesa (Jranium Mill sets out a procedure for dealing with seeps and springs that are
effictively dry and cannot be sampled after repeated attempts. Those procedures do not
require prior Executive Secretary approval for the omission of samples in those
circumstances. Therefore, we suggest that Part 1.8.6(h) be revised to read as follows:
h. Sample Omission - in the course of each annual sampling event, the Permittee shall
sample and analyze, or attempt to sample and analyze, all six seeps and springs identified in
Table 1 of the currently approved Sampling Plan for Seeps and Springs in the Vicinity of the
White Mesa Uranium Mill. The Permittee shall not omit sampling of any seep or spring
during said annual event, without prior written approval of the Executive Secretary, unless
the omission is in accordance with such Plan for any seeps or spings that are dry and not
capable of being sampled.
DRC Response: Substantive Comment.
We agree that the approved plan requires three attempts be made to sample a seep or spring
between May I and July 15 of each year. The plan also requires DUSA to provide a 15-day
written notice before the first attempt, in order that DRC staff can observe the field work
and/or perform split sampling. After further consideration, Part LE.6(h) was removed from
the Permit.
4. Part 1.8.7(f)
The phrase "If a discrepancy is identified . . ." in the last sentence of Part 1.8.7(f) is vague
and dfficult to apply with precision in practice. In order to provide more certainty, we
suggest that the phrase "the applicable provisions of the" be added before the word
"currently" in that sentence. This will tie the requirements of the Permit to the more specific
procedures set out in the Liner Maintenance Provisions, which are capable of being applied
with precision in practice.
DRC Response: Substantive Comment.
The DRC agrees with DUSA that the current wording at Part I.E.7(0 of the September 2,
2009 Draft version of the Permit could be considered vague. The important point is that any
liner defect or damage observed be corrected. Therefore, the phrase has been changed as
follows (changes in red), and can be found in Attachment 3, below:
o
ufirmaryPublic Participation S
January 20,2009
"... tf*4i{ietep*Rey In tlie event that any Iiner c{et'ect or damage is identified during a liner
system inspection, the Permittee shall immediately implement the currently approved Liner
Maintenance Provisions."
5. Part 1.8.10
The following clarifying changes are suggested:
a) Change paragraph l)a to read "One surface impounded wastewater location at each
of Tailings Cells I , 3, and 4A" ;
b) Add the words "each of before the word Tailings in paragraph 10b;
DRC Response: Substantive Comment.
Agreed. Therefore, the Permit has been revised accordingly.
c) The subparagraphs in paragraph l0 should be renumberd (sic) so that there is not a
repeat of subparagraph letters a., b. and c; and
DRC Resnonse: Substantive Comment.
Agreed. Part I.E.10 has been renumbered accordingly.
d) In subparagraph g., Prior Notification, delete the words "fieldwork or" and add the
phrase "under 10.a, b and c" afier the words "sample collection". There is no other
"fieldwork" that would require notice ta the Executive Secretary under the Plan;
therefore, reference to fieldwork should be eliminated.
DRC Response: Substantive Comment.
Since Part I.E.10 has been renumbered (see above), subparagraph (g) is now Part I.E.l0(dx7)
of the Permit. The DRC agrees to remove "fieldwork o/' from Part I.E.10(dX7) of the
Permit. However, the rest of the proposed wording at Part I.E.10(dX7) in the September 2,
2009 Draft version of the Permit will stand.
6. Part 1.G.2
The Ground Water Compliance Limits have been set In the Permit to take into account the
mean and standard deviations or their equivalent, such that anything less than two
consecutive exceedances of the GWCLs would not be considered to be statistically
significant. Therefore, if paragraph 2(a)(I) is to be deleted, then paragraph 2(b) should also
be deleted. Retaining paragraph 2(b) is confusing, given the way that the GWCLs have been
calculated, for the same reasons that retaining paragraph 2(a)( 1) would be confusing. Both
paragraphs should be deleted. They merely restate the applicable regulations. However, if
paragraph 2(b) is to be retained in the Permit, then paragraph 2(a)( I ) should also be
I
rnmaryPublic Participation Su
January 20,2009
retained in the Permit. We can see no reason for keeping one of the paragraphs and deleting
the other.
DRC Response: Substantive Comment.
The EPA guidance referenced in Part I.G.2(b) cites several other statistical methods that may
be used to determine compliance, beyond those used by DUSA to determine the mean plus
the second standard deviation (x+2o) concentration. However, the DRC is satisfied with
statistical methods used to date to derive the Ground Water Compliance Limits found in
Table 2 of the Permit, and accordingly Part I.G.2(b) of the Permit has been removed. To
further streamline the wording, the phrase in Part I.G.2(a) has been added to Part I.G.2. For
details, see this section in Attachment 3, below.
7. Part 1.H.4
As discussed with DRC staff on May I l, 2009, Denison does not believe that it is necessary
to add Part 1.H.4 to the Permit. Further, the requirements of Part 1.H.4 cannot be complied
with as drafted.
The Background Reports prepared by INTERA, Inc. demonstrate that the Mill's tailings cells
are not leaking to groundwater. The conclusions of those reports were confirmed by the
University of Utah Study, which evaluated existing wells that were considered to be the most
indicative of any potential tailings cell leakage. There is no need to perform yet another
study to verify those conclusions, particularly given the considerations below.
There are currently over 40 monitoring constituents in the Permit. These include chloride,
tluoride, sulfote and uranium which are all good indicator parameters. As discussed at our
meeting and in our June 5, 2009 correspondence with supporting INTERA memorandum,
any potential future tailings cell leakage to groundwater will be picked up by these indicator
parameters before any other constituents. There cannot be a leak to groundwater of any
significance without one or more of these parameters indicating an upward trend. However,
although an upward trend in one or more of these indicator constituents is necessary in
order to reach a conclusion that the tailings cells are leaking, a rising trend in one or more
of these constituents does not necessarily imply that the tailings cells are leaking. Rising
trends in indicator parameters could also be due to natural inJluences.
As we discussed in our May I 1, 2009 meeting, nothing will be gained Jiom characterizing at
this time the chemical composition, noble gas composition, and age of the groundwater in
the wells that were not covered by the University of Utah Study. Any potential future
exceedance of a GWCL would be evaluated at the time of the exceedance by the most
appropriate methods in the circumstances. This would most likely include a spatial and
temporal analysis of the constituent in question together with all other constituents in the
well, with a primary focus on the indicator parameters. If such an analysis is not conclusive,
such as when one or more indicator parameters have also risen or have demonstrated an
upward trend or trends and natural influences cannot be ruled out, then a further analysis
o
ufirmaryPublic Participation S
January 20,2009
would be performed. This analysis may include an isotopic analysis, depending on the
circumstances. If an isotopic analysis were to be performed at that time, then the results of
that analysis would be relevant, not the results of an isotopic analysis performed today.
In addition to the fact that the analyses contemplated by Part 1.H,4 are not necessary and
will provide little, if any, information relevant to the analysis of a potential future GWCL
exceedance, there are a number of practical problems associated with such an analysis. As
we discussed at our May 11, 2009 meeting, the analyses contemplated by Part 1.H.4 are not
mainstream (i.e., there are no generally accepted methods), they are costly to perform, they
are not capable of being performed at commercial laboratories, and they cannot be
performed in the 90-day time frame proposed in Part 1.H.4.
The required analysis can only be performed at a limited number of university laboratories.
Those laboratories are not Utah-certified and there are no EPA-approved methods for such
analyses. Further, Denison cannot control the timing and results from such non-accredited
laboratories. This is because Denison would not have a choice of commercial laboratories
from which to obtain all of the required work. For example, Denison took splits of the
samples taken by the University of Utah in July 2007 and engaged one of the few available
other university laboratories to perform the tritium/helium analysis. After six months of
waiting for the analytical results, and being deferred behind other university projects,
Denisonfinally called offthe analysis. Denison cannot be held responsible forfailure to
meet a schedule when such failure is not within its control.
It took the University of Utah approximately one year to complete its study. Planning started
in the Spring of 2007, fieldwork was performed in July, 2007 and the final report was issued
in May,2008. It is unrealistic to expect that Denison could have such a study performed in
the 90 days contemplated by Part 1.H.4. A more realistic time frame would be 365 days, as
required by the University of Utah. However even a time frame of 365 days may not be
achievable, given Denison's inability to control the schedule of the non commercial
laboratory or laboratories that would be required to perform the analysis.
In summary, the evaluations required by proposed Part 1.H.4 are not necessary to establish
that the Mill's tailings cells have not leaked to date; they will provide little, If any,
information that could be of use in evaluating a potential future tailings cell leak; witl be
costly; will not be performed in accordance with accepted EPA guidance, will take at least
one-year to complete; and the timing of completion of the study will not be within Denison's
control. As a result, proposed Part 1.H.4 should be eliminated from the Permit.
DRC Response: Substantive Comment.
The DRC continues to believe that additional study of groundwater isotopic geochemistry at
the site is appropriate at some time. However, we agree that it is DUSA's prerogative to
defer such study until a monitoring well or contaminant passes into Out-of-Compliance
status by exceeding its respective Ground Water Compliance Limit. We also recognize that
the burden for groundwater remediation, should it be necessary, clearly falls on DUSA. As a
result, the DRC has removed Part I.H.4 of the Permit on the basis that Part I.G.4 of the
l0
o
ummaryPublic Participation S
January 20,2009
Permit already provides a process for DUSA to study possible sources of the contamination,
and remediate it. Other discussion related to this issue is found in comments from two other
parties, see DRC responses below.
8. Part 1.H.5
Once the new decontamination pad is constructed, Mill personnel will be able to check the
leak detection system weekly and will be able to take the pad out of service annually in order
to inspect the integrity of the steel liner in each of the settling ponds and the visually exposed
surface areas of the concrete pad. However, it will not be possible to inspect the integrity of
the concrete surfaces below the steel liner in each tank, as it will not be possible to remove
the steel liner from each tank. Inspections of such concrete surfaces are not necessory, given
the fact that the tanks are lined with steel liners, a leak detection system is checked weekly,
and the integrity of the steel liners is checked annually. References to concrete surfaces
should therefore be removedfrom Part 1.H.5, or it should be made clear that only visually
exposed areas ofthe concrete pad need to be inspected annually and that this does not
include areas under the steel tank liners.
DRC Response: Substantive Comment.
Agreed. Part LH.5 of the Permit has been modified so that the New Decontamination Pad
will be inspected annually to ensure integrity of the exposed concrete surface on the wash
pad.
ll
o
mmaryPublic Participation Su
January 20,2009
Comments from Mr. Scott Clow, Environmental Programs
Director Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, on October 8, 2009.
Note: Mr. Clow's comments have been numbered for reference purposes.
Dear Executive Secretary Finerfrock:
The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe of Colorado, New Mexico and Utah, through its Environmental
Programs Department, hereby submits the following comments for the record regarding
proposed revisions to Groundwater Permit Number UGW370004:
The Tribe commends the Division of Radiation Control (DRC) for the work it has done in
increasing the regulatory oversight of the White Mesa Uranium Mill since its authority was
granted in 2004. The technical understanding of environmental ramifications to White Mesa
is of concern to the Tribe and its Wite Mesa Community, and we sincerely appreciate that
there is a higher level of scrutiny being researched and documented to ensure the protection
of public health and environment there. We do have three items we would like to be assured
of in this revised permit's implementation and subsequent permits thereafter.
1. We implore the Division of Radiation Control to require full implementation of Section
1.H.4, the isotopic signatures and groundwater age study, similar to the University of
Utah Study for the wells that were not included in that study. Denison Mines USA Corp.
(DUSA) benefitted greatly from the DRC's commissioning of that original study, and it
has also benefitted the Tribe and our technical understanding of groundwater on Wite
Mesa. We hope that the DRC will require compliance with the assigned schedule for that
study, as well, without any "schedule resets" or permit revisions to accomplish it, as is
the case with the slime drains DMT monitoring.
DRC Response:
This section of the Permit was removed at the request of DUSA. For details, see DRC
response above for 10/8/09 comments from Mr. David Frydenlund, Item 7 on pages 9 - I I of
this Public Participation Summary.
2. The Tribe further requests that the permit state explicitly that the groundwater mounding
from the wildlife ponds at the facility be defined as, "mill operations." The DRC clearly
understands the implications of this being an area of uncertainty, and we appreciate the
position that has been taken in the Statement of Basis regarding the downgradient wells
and mixing of groundwaters, regardless of tailings discharges. Still, it must be clearly
defined in the permit, that the influence from man-made ponds on the facility on any
groundwater constituent or plume of constituents is the result of mill operations and
should not be considered "natural," a term used by DUSA in its response to the original
L2
o
SummarPublic Participation
January 20,2009
drafi permit revision regarding statistically significant increasing trends (Statement of
Basis, page 8). In the long run, this concrete definition will help all of the parties
involved.
DRC Response: Substantive Comment.
We agree that the groundwater mounding from the wildlife ponds is a result of water storage
related to "mill operations." We also agree that the artificial recharge water from the wildlife
ponds has altered the shallow aquifer geochemistry at the Mill site. This was substantiated
by the May, 2008 University of Utah Report which showed downgradient wells MW-14,
MW-15, and MW-17 (with excess total uranium concentrations) were likely the product of
artificial recharge from the wildlife ponds mobilizing natural uranium in the vadose zone,
and not from tailings cell leakage. Although these excess uranium concentrations are not
natural, they are not the product of tailings disposal or tailings cell leakage.
While the wildlife ponds are related to facility operations, they are not central to tailings
disposal. However, the do serve an important environmental purpose, that of encouraging
migratory waterfowl to occupy a safer habitat, and not come in contact with the acidic
wastewaters found in the tailings cells.
We reiterate our previous statement (September 2OO9 Statement of Basis, p.9) "the Executive
Secretary has determined that the hydraulic inJluence of the wildlife ponds will not be
considered, for purposes of monitoring the tailings cells and the setting of GWCLs for
downgradieit wells." This means that the Ground Water Compliance Limits (GWCLs) are
now established for the monitoring wells at the facility, and enforceable under the Permit. In
the event that a GWCL is exceeded in the future, Part I.G.4 of the Permit mandates a course
of action whereby DUSA will be required to determine the source of the contamination and
provide remedial action, if needed. The requirements for groundwater corrective action are
found in the Utah Ground Water Quality Protection Regulations [UAC R317-6-6.15] and
require an opportunity for public comment. Therefore, no further changes to the Permit are
needed at this time.
3. Finally, in the draft revised permit. Section H.2.4-15 (strikethrough version had a
strikethrough number for this section), a plan for the evaluation of deep supply well WW-
2, does not seem to have an implementation schedule. As this well creates a direct
conduit to the Tribe's drinking water source in the White Mesa Ute Community, as well
as the communities of Bluff, Blanding, and Montezuma Creek, we request that an
implementation schedule be included with periodic monitoring of the similar casing.
DRC Response: Substantive Comment.
DUSA has submitted the Plan for Evaluation of Deep Supply Well WW-Z. The Plan was
received by the DRC on March 8, 2006. Because the deep water supply wells were not
required to be abandoned on or before decommissioning of the White Mesa Mill, the plan
has not been a top priority to review and has yet to be reviewed by the DRC.
13
o
SummaryPublic Participation
January 20,2009
Well WW-2 is located upgradient of the tailings cells, therefore it is unlikely groundwater in
this well has been affected or will be affpcted by tailing cell wastewater. However, in the
summer of 2009, a nitrate contamination plume was identified in five monitoring wells in the
mill site area, including wells: MW-30, MW-31, TW4-22,TW4-24, andTW4-25. These
five shallow monitoring wells are also found downgradient of the well WW-2 location.
DUSA agreed to investigate the source and extent of the nitrate contamination and submit a
report to the DRC on or before January 4,2010, for Executive Secretary review and
approval. This report was received on January 4,2010 and is currently under DRC review.
After consideration of the Tribe's concern regarding well WW-2, DRC staff contacted
DUSA and inquired about the well's current use and status. DUSA said the well currently
provides the Mill with water for eye wash stations and showers, is pumped several times a
day, yields about 160 gallons per minute, and water from the well is placed into an on-site
storage tank.
The Executive Secretary has determined that because it is unknown if an annular seal exists
in well WW-2, that active pumping of the supply well has the potential to draw contaminants
from the shallow aquifer into the deep supply well. However, it appears unlikely that the
deeper confined aquifer would be contaminated thanks to the artesian conditions in the
confined aquifer and the repeated removal of water from the deep well which could deliver
such contaminants back to ground for use in the mill operations.
On January l4,2OlO, DUSA committed to verify the well casing and annular seal integrity
of well WW-2 and agreed to remediate, if needed. DUSA committed that it would perform
the investigation and repair of well WW-2 (if needed) and submit a repair report, for
Executive Secretary review and approval, within two years after the issuance of the current
Permit modification. Accordingly, a deadline of January 31,2012, was set for this work and
report in Part I.H.3 of the Permit.
To ensure that adequate testing of the well casing and annular seal at well WW-2 is
performed, the Permit was modified to list several types of tests (one or more) that need to be
conducted, including: well casing video logs, cement bond logs, and/or temperature logs.
Relevant guidance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other sources, is also
available on such testing techniques, and can be found as follows:
Well Casing Video Logs (Casing Inspection Logs) can be performed by several
different service companies, a few examples of these are:
http://rvw w. hal I iburton.com/ps/Defau lt.aspx ?navid= I 83&paeeid=20,
http :/iwww. laynew ater.com/downholffi , and
http://www.welenco.com/video surveys.htm
Cement Bond Logging - http:/1www.epa.gov/regionS/water/uic/R8UIC-
GUIDE34.pdf
l4
o
mmaryPublic Participation Su
January 20,2009
o Temperature Logging - http://www.epa.gov/region8/water/uic/INFo-Templog.pdf
The DRC feels this work plan and timeframe is appropriate to protect nearby users of the
deep confined aquifer, and Part I.H.3 of the Permit has been modified to make the new
requirements enforceable.
4. Similarly, in Section H.2, the Infiltration and Contaminant Transport Modeling Work
Plan and Report lacks a compliance schedule, and we request that one be required of the
permittee.
DRC Response: Substantive Comment.
Tt " Irfiltrution and Contaminant Transport Modeling (ICTM) Report is a work in progress.
Its purpose is to demonstrate the long-term ability of the tailings cells cover system
adequately contain and control tailings contaminants and protect nearby groundwater quality
of the uppermost aquifer.
As stated in the March 14,2OOB Public Participation Summary for the March 17,2008
permit Modification, DUSA has submitted the ICTM Report. A timeline showing the review
process of this report is shown below:
o The ICTM was received by the DRC on November 26,2007.
o After reviewing the report, the DRC responded in a February 2,2009 Request for
Information Letter (RFD.
A meeting was held on March 31,2009 with DUSA and its consultant Montgomery
watson Harza(IvIWH) to discuss the items of the February 2, 2009 RFI.
On April 30,2OO9 DUSA submitted a Draft MWH memo, which outlined DUSA
response to the February 2,2009 DRC RFI.
After reviewing the Draft MWH memo, the DRC responded in an August 5, 2009 e-
mail transmitting comments to the submittal and requested another meeting with
DUSA.
On September 2,2009 a meeting was held with DUSA and its consultant MWH to
discuss strategies and improvements needed in the revised version of the ICTM. At
conclusion of the meeting, DUSA agreed to finalize its response to the February 2,
2009 RFI and prepare a second draft of the ICTM.
o During a phone call with DUSA on November 5,2009, DUSA committed to
providing a revised ICTM Report by March 31,2010.
o A DRC Confiflnatory Action lrtter was issued on November 16, 2009 to document
the agreed on deliverables and deadlines. This schedule and plan is now in force.
15
o
mmarPublic Participation Su
January 20,2009
Comments from Ms. Sarah Fields on October 8. 2009
Note: Ms. Sarah Fields also made verbal comments at the Public Meeting held on October 7,
2009 at the Blanding Arts and Events Center in Blanding, Utah. Review of the transcript of
these verbal comments shows they are repetitive of her written comments submitted on
October 8,2009. Consequently, the Division's response focused on her written October 8,
2009 comments, which are addressed below. Ms. Fields' verbal comments at the October 7,
2009 Public Meeting can be found in the Official Transcript of the meeting, which is
included as Attachment2, below.
Re: Modification to the Groutnd Water Quality Discharge Permit No. UGW370004;
Denison Mines (USA) Corporation, Wite Mesa Uranium Mill
Dear Mn Finerfrock and Division of Radiation Control Staff
Below please find comments on the Modification to the Ground Water Quality Discharge
Permit (Permit) for the Denison Mines (USA) Corporation (DUSA) Wite Mesa
(Jranium Mi.ll, submitted on behalf of Uranium Watch, Living Rivers, and the Glen
Canyon Group of the Sierra Club.
I. Statement of Basis
l.l Wildffi Ponds
Comment:
The Division of Radiation Control (DRC) should require, rather than just suggest, that
DUSA create lined wildlifu ponds at the site, for the following reasons:
a. It is imperative that both DUSA and the DRC are able to determine in a timely manner
whether contaminants from the tailings impoundments are moving into the aquifer. Any
increasing and elevated concentrations of the constituents in the ground water at the Wite
Mesa Uranium MilI may indicate that such leakage has occurred. If there are questions, as
there have been over the past few years, about the source of those elevated concentrations,
there will be delay in the identifying the source and delay in developing a mitigation plan.
This is not acceptable.
DRC Response: Substantive Comment
We agree that groundwater monitoring is important in determination of tailings cell leakage,
especially for Cells 1,2, and 3 that were constructed with only a single flexible membrane
liner (FML), and without a robust leak detection system (LDS). However, we believe that
t6
I
ummaryPublic Participation S
January 20,2009
groundwater contamination will be detected in a timely manner, and the public and
environment be protected, based on the following findings:
1. Multiple compliance monitoring wells are found in close proximity to the tailings
cells.
2. Groundwater velocity at the site is much less than 135 feetlyear (see lll23l04 and
lll 16107 DRC Memoranda).
Distance from the south edge of the southern-most tailings cell (Cell 4,A.) to the
southern DUSA property boundary ranges from about 8,000 to 18,000 feet.
As a result, the time for groundwater to travel across this distance will be more than
59 to 133 years, respectively. This interval is sufficient for detection, verification,
and mitigation / remediation of any contamination before it leaves the DUSA
property and has opportunity to expose human or environmental receptors.
b. Data and informationfrom the ground-water monitoring wells should not be compromised
by the presence of constituents that have been mobilized by the water from the wildlife ponds.
If the ponds remain unlined, identification of the source will be delayed by the need for
additional studies to determine the source of the increased levels of uranium and other
constituents in the wells.
DRC Response: Substantive Comment
We agree that the wildlife pond leakage has potential to confuse and delay determination of
tailings cell leakage. However, this component of detection delay is anticipated to be small
in magnitude, on the order of a few years that it might take to complete additional
groundwater geochemical and isotopic studies.
In contrast, a much larger delay exists in detection of tailings cell leakage due to the original
design and construction of Tailings Cells l, 2, and 3; which were built without a robust and
rapid reporting LDS. This slow reporting is expected to be on the order of many decades,
due to slow travel time for cell leakage to traverse the vadose zone and reach the water table
(- 40 + feet), and then travel horizontally to a nearby monitoring well (- 750 feet on
average).
This delay is an artifact of the original design and construction approved by the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) before promulgation of the Utah Ground Water Quality
Protection Regulations (1989), and before Utah became an Agreement State (2004). When
Utah took over regulation of uranium mill tailings, there were no DUSA monitoring wells
between Cells I and2, nor any between Cells 2 and 3. To fix this problem, the DRC
required DUSA to install eight (8) new monitoring wells during issuance of the first State
Permit in March, 2005.
aJ.
4.
t7
o
mmaryPublic Participation Su
January 20,2009
However, as explained above, once contamination is detected by a nearby well, there will be
more than 59 years available to verify and remediate it before exposure to human or
environmental receptors. While we prefer that earlier detection were possible today (via Best
Available Technology design and construction), we cannot undue decisions made by other
parties almost 30 years ago.
c. The unlined ponds will no longer provide a source of water to the aquifer, if they are
replaced by lined ponds. This should result in the gradual decrease in levels ofuranium and
other metals that have shown increased levels in the monitoring wells.
DRC Response: Non-substantive Comment
This may happen if the wildlife ponds were lined. However, because the wildlife ponds do
not impound wastewater, the DRC has no statuary authority to require DUSA to reline,
remove, or replace the wildlife ponds under the current provisions of the Utah Water Quality
Act.
d. Also, the lined ponds should be placed in another location in order to facilitate the drying
out of the aquifer in the vicinity of the unlined ponds and so than any leakage from the lined
ponds can be readily detected.
DRC Response: Non-substantive Comment
As mentioned above, the DRC has no statutory authority to regulate the wildlife ponds, and
cannot compel DUSA to relocate them. Further, if they were relocated, and then leaked,
additional uranium and other vadose zone contaminants would be dissolved into
groundwater, and added confusion would exist as to contaminant source.
e. If the unlined ponds are removed and replaced with lined ponds in another location and
the increasing and elevated trace metal concentrations do not decrease, or continue to
increase over time, then there may be another source of increase in the contaminants of
concern and more studies will have to be conducted.
DRC Response: Non-substantive Comment
This statement assumes that the new or re-located wildlife ponds would not leak. This
premise is speculative, since the DRC cannot compel DUSA to install any type of liner at
these ponds. See discussion above.
f. If the unlined ponds are left in place, there is no way to verify that increased in
contaminants in the monitoring wells result from the water leaking from the ponds and
mobilizing pre-existing constituents in the soils and rock.
18
Public Participation SummarY
January 20,2009
DRC Response: Substantive Comment
The groundwater isotopic study recently performed by the University of Utah was very
insightful, and such tools or other geochemical studies may be equally decisive in the future.
However, in the event that a study is required in the future, and then found to be
inconclusive, ineffective or without technical merit, DUSA will continue to bear the burden
for ground water quality protection, and the Executive Secretary will have no other choice
but to compel DUSA to prepare a Ground Water Corrective Action plan pursuant to the
requirements of UAC R317-6-6.15.
g. Removal of the ponds and relocation of lined ponds would also allow for the study of the
changes in the shallow aquifer geochemistry from a benign source and trace the recovery
over time.
DRC Response: Substantive Comment
This statement assumes the new wildlife ponds would not leak and repeat the same problem
at a new location. The commenter also ignores the opportunity to study this phenomenon at
the time of site closure when the wildlife ponds will be taken out of service.
h. The wildlife ponds are a part of the mill operation. If the unlined ponds cause the
mobilization of contamination in the ground water, the ponds should be removed, whether or
not they are secondary in nature and whether or not they inJluence the setting of Ground
Water Compliance Limits (GWCLs) for down-gradient wells.
DRC Response: Substantive Comment.
The DRC agrees that it would be prudent for DUSA to reline or replace the wildlife ponds.
However, because the ponds do not hold wastewater, the DRC has no statuary authority to
require DUSA to reline, remove, or replace the wildlife ponds. Further, the wildlife ponds
serve an important environmental purpose, that of encouraging migratory waterfowl to
occupy a safer aquatic habitat, and not contact the acidic wastewaters found in the tailings
cells.
Precedence of management of secondary groundwater mounds has been set at another DRC
regulated facility, where a non-wastewater impoundment leaked and altered local
groundwater hydraulic gradients and dissolved certain metals held in the vadose zone. This
facility, EnergySolutions in Tooele County, saw one or more wells exceed their respective
GWCL for several redox sensitive contaminants. In this situation, the DRC required
EnergySolutions provide corroborating scientific evidence to substantiate their claims that
the excess groundwater concentrations were caused by the artificial recharge, and not by
disposal embankment leakage. After this evidence was provided, and the Executive
Secretary accepted it, a draft Permit was prepared and formal public comment period held on
the proposed GWCL changes.
t9
t
mmaryPublic Participation Su
January 20,2009
The Division anticipates it will proceed in a likewise fashion in the event that a contaminant
exceeds its GWCL in a given well at White Mesa. In the event that this occurs and DUSA is
unable to substantiate a claim that the increased contamination is solely due to the wildlife
ponds (or any other non-tailings cell source), then the Executive Secretary will be compelled
to require DUSA to prepare a groundwater corrective action plan pursuant to the
requirements of UAC R317-6-6.15.
Therefore, the Executive Secretary has decided to allow DUSA to proceed at its own risk. If
the GWCLs are exceeded in the future, and DUSA is not successful at showing how the
groundwater in the affected wells has a different geochemical signature than the tailings
wastewater then it will be DUSA's burden to implement groundwater corrective action.
1.2 Subtenanean paths
Comment:
The University of Utah studies also show that there are subterranean paths that might
facilitate the movement of leakage from the tailings into unexpected areas and depths in the
vicinity of the tailings impoundments in the future. The DRC and DUSA should continue to
identify and evaluate these pathways, which also might facilitate the movement of water
downward and into geological layers below the surface layers at the site.
DRC Resnonse: Non-Substantive Comment.
The University of Utah study showed that the tailing cells were not contributing to the
uranium concentrations seen in the DUSA monitoring wells sampled. More precisely, this
study indicated that the increasing uranium concentrations observed in several DUSA wells
may be due to rising groundwater caused by the wildlife recharge mounds, flows along
subterranean paths that were previously un-traveled and unsaturated, thereby dissolving
solutes that were once fixated to the vadose zone formation.
If or when excess contamination is detected in a monitoring well, additional hydrogeologic
studies may be required by the DRC, on a case-by-case basis, and pursuant to the
requirements found in UAC R317-6-6.15(C).
1.2 Draft Permit and Statement of Basis
Comment:
a. Uranium Watch agrees that the Supplemental Isotopic Ground water and Surface
Wat'er Investigation and Report compliance schedule item found at Part 1.H.4 of the
Permit should stand. It is imperative that additional studies are conducted at the Wite
Mesa Mill site and that the most reliable research ground water analysis technology is used.
20
o
ummaryPublic Participation S
January 2O,2OO9
DRC Response:
Contrary to the position indicated in the September,2OOg DRC SOB, the Executive
Secretary has decided to remove this requirement from the Permit, for reasons discussed
above.
b. The DRC should create a schedule table for all submittals related to the Permit: the
Supplemental Isotopic Ground Water and Surface Water Investigation and Report,
Nitrate contaminant plume, and other required submittals, and post it on the DRC website.
DRC Response: Non-Substantive Comment.
It is unnecessary to set a deadline for an isotopic study that will not be required at this time.
As for the Nitrate Plume investigation that matter is being administered formally under a
Stipulated Consent Agreement with DUSA, dated January 28,2009 (Docket No. UGW09-
03).
1.3. Tailings Cells 2 and 3 Slimes Drain Requirements: Performance Standards
[Part 1.D.3(b)], Monitoring Requirements [Part 1.E.7(b)], and Reporting [PartI.F.11l
Comment:
1.3.1. The discussion of the monthly reports for the slimes drain monitoring, states that
"none of the monthly recovery data collected in 2007, and only two monthly tests collected in
2008 met the 9)-hour duration and the stable water level criteria." However, the agency
findings were not presented until March 30, 2009. It appears that the DRC is remiss in
evaluating the monthly monitoring reports and correcting the test data collection and
reporting processes.
Because of past non-compliance, the DRC should evaluate each monthly report within a pre-
determined period of time and with particular attention so that any problems are identffied
and corrected within weeks, not months or years.
Wen the DRC is slow to review and respond to data and information that documents
problems with DUSA's compliance with sampling and reporting requirements, that leads to
further problems and leads DUSA to believe that this is not a priority with the DRC, so
it need not be a priority with DUSA.
DRC Response: Non-Substantive Comment.
We respectively disagree. First, the commenter is mistaken, the results of monthly DUSA
slimes drain recovery tests are submitted on a quarterly basis with the Discharge
Minimization Technology (DMT) Monitoring Reports. Second, DRC review of these DUSA
quarterly reports is part of our routine compliance work, and the focus of Engineering
Modules 75A thru D of our annual lle.(Z) inspection program. As with all DRC compliance
2t
o
ummaryPublic Participation S
January 20,2009
/ inspection work, the review of these DUSA reports is subject to available DRC engineering
resources and priorities established by DRC management.
Contrary to the commenter's claims, DRC records shows the Division actively reviews these
reports, as summari zed tn the table below. In addition, the September, 2009 SOB, explained
that after review of several DUSA reports in 2007 , the DRC found it necessary to strengthen
the related Permit requirements in order to ensure adequate collection and reporting of the
required information. These changes became effective with the revised Permit of March,
2008.
1) DRC findings made during an October 31, 2007 on-site inspection. Missing information provided in a DUSA 10/31/07 email.
2) DRC NOED included a formal waming that repeated failure to submit the required slimes drain recovery test information would
result in escalated enforcement action.
1.4 Resolved Compliance Schedule Items
Comment:
One of the compliance problems has been the failure of DUSA to conform to the EPA
Guidance: "statistical analysis of ground-water monitoring data at RCRAfacilities: Interim
final guidance" ( 1989) and the Addendum to Interim final guidance ( 1992). It is hard to
understand why the DUSA was not aware that they must comply with that guidance. It seems
that the DRC should have informed DUSA long ago that they would expect DUSA to use the
guidance for their statistical analyses of the ground-water monitoring data at the Wite
Mesa Uranium Mill.
In the future, DRC should inform DUSA and any other 11e.(2) byproduct material licensee in
a timely manner-of the guidance documents that the DRC expects them to rely on for data
DUSA rterly DMT Chrono
DUSA Report Date DRC Received DRC Findines
1" and 2""
Quarters,2007
June I I and September 5,
2007
October 31,2007 site inspection'
3'" Quarter,2007 December 10,2007 February l,2OOB Notice of Enforcement
Discretitn (2)
4'" Quarter,2007 February 27,2008 April 10, 2008 Confirmatory Action Letter
1" and 2"'
Quarters,2008
May 30 and September 2,
2008
October 1, 2008 Request for Information
Letter
3'' Quarter, 2008 December 1,2008 December 17, 2008 Confirmatory Action
Letter
4"'Quarter, 2008 March 2,2009 April 7, 2009 Notice of Non-Compliance
l" Ouarter, 2009 June 1,2009 August 26,2009 Approval Letter
2"'Quarter,2009 September 1,2009 September 14,2009 Approval Letter
3'o Quarter,2OO9 December 1,2009 Review in process
Footnotes:
22
o
mmaryPublic Participation Su
January 20,2009
gathering and analysis andfor any other purpose related to compliance with DRC
requirements.
DRC Response: Non-Substantive Comment.
We disagree with the commenter. The original DUSA Background Report for Existing
Wells was prepared by Intera Inc. and submitted on Decemb er 29,2006. Review shows thatthe original Intera report cites the July,1992 EPA groundwater statistical guidance (ibid., p.61). In turn, the 1992EPA document references the earlier interim final EpA guidance of1989. Hence, the Permittee was aware of the statistical guidance the Division would rely onin its review.
2. Draft Ground Water Quality Discharge permit
The draft Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit at 2.1 H. COMZLIANCE SCHEDULE
REQUIREMENTS, states, "The Permittee will comply with the schedules as described and
summarized below...." Two of the compliance schedule items are: Compliance ltem 2:Infiltration and Contaminant Transport Modeling Work Plan and Repirt; and ComplianceItem 3: Planfor Evaluation of Deep Supply Well WW-2
Comment:
A schedule is "a plan for carrying out a process or procedure, giving lists of intended eventsand times." What is missing in the Compliance Schedule and ii the itatemint oy
Basis for ltems 2 and 3 is a time for the submittal of the two referenced items. iiglrt now, thesubmittal of the Infiltration and Contaminant Transport Modeling Work plan and Report
and the Planfor Evaluation of Deep Supply Well WW-2 appears-to be open ended. ThePermit needs to include dates certainfor the submittals of those documints; that is, an actual"schedule."
DRC Response: Substantive Comment
See DRC response above for 10/8/09 comments from Mr. Scott Clow, Items 3 and 4, on
pages 13 - l5 of this Public Participation Summary.
3. Availabitity of Docaments
Comment:
I appreciate that the DRC posted the pertinent Permit documents on the DRC website alongwith the public notice. I would imagine that the DRC wilt be posted DUSA,s
Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit renewal application and other documents related
to the permit renewal in a timely manner.
23
o
mmaryPublic Participation Su
January 20,2009
DRC Response: Non-substantive Comment.
This comment has no relevance to the proposed Permit changes. However, the DUSA
Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit renewal application was received on September 2,
2009, and has been posted on the DRC website at
http://www.radiationcontrol.utah.gov/Uranium Mills/IUC/Denison IUC/UGW renerval.htm
l. Review of the Permit Renewal Application is currently on going. Initial review of the
PDF files provided by the Permitee show that there are a number of QA/QC issues with the
documents that need to be corrected. As a result the PDF files now posted on the DRC
website are subject to change. Related future DRC correspondence with DUSA will also be
posted on the DRC website.
Comment:
However, I am very discouraged by the fact that the DRC and Department of
Environmental Quality have never developed a document control system that would enable
the DRC to post all relevant licensing documents on the DRC website within afew weeks of
the receipt of or date of the document. This would include inspection reports, reports
submitted by DUSA in compliance with the Permit and source material license,
correspondence, etc. It is both time consuming and costly to access DRC licensing
documents at this time, and one never knows what may have been missed. Wen I was at the
DRC ffice in September to access DRC's licensing documents for the Wite Mesa Mill,
there were some records that were not available that day for me to view and copy.
On at least two occasions I came be.fore the Radiation Control Board with my concerns
about the availability of documents since Utah became a Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) Agreement State for uranium recovery facilities and 11e.(2) byproduct
material impoundments in August 2004 (over 5 years ago). The NRC had made all uranium
recovery licensing documents readily available on their electronic reading room system
(ADAMS) since November 1999, and I thought that a similar system would benefit the DRC,
industry, and the public. I was told at the Board meetings that the DRC was working with the
state government to development a system to make licensing documents publicly available
and that that would happen in the near future. It has never happened, and I see no evidence
whatsoever that it will ever happen or that there was ever a serious effort to make it happen.
The information provided to me at two fficial Board meetings was misleading and does not
engender respect or confidence in the Board and the DRC.
Therefure, I request that the DRC request funding from the State Legislature, request an
increase in licensing fees, or find other resources to develop a comprehensive means to index
and post all licensing documents related to uranium recovery operations in Utah.
In the meantime, I request that the DRC make every effort to post more DUSA licensing
documents on their website, starting with the inspections reports and SERP reports.
24
Public Participation
January 20,2009
DRC Response: Non-Substantive Comment.
This comment has no relevance to the proposed modifications for the DUSA Permit.
However, the DRC has begun to store critical Licensing documents in an electronic (PDF)
format. Starting in March of 2009, the DRC began scanning all incoming documents and
placing them into an electronic database. In the August, 2009, all documents authored by the
DRC began to be added to the database. At some future date, the Department of
Environmental Quality may make this database available to the public. When this may
happen is currently unknown.
o
Summary
25
Public Participation Su
January 20,2009
Additional DRC Permit Modifications Since Close of Public
Comment Period
After the public comment period, the DRC made additional modifications to the Permit.
Some of changes made to the Permit have been discussed above. Other additional changes to
the Permit are described below. These new modifications are considered minor; therefore,
no new public comment period was necessary. A red-line strikeout version of the Final
Permit is included as Attachment 3 to show the most recent changes.
Routine Groundwater Compliance Monitoring Frequency - Ouarterlv Monitoring. Part
a
mmary
Il€ trfoU
Part I.E.1(c)
As discussed in the September 2009 SOB (p.21- 22), DUSA failed to provide aquifer
permeability and velocity information for well NNV-24 in the August 23,2005 Revised
Hydrogeologic Report. Because of this, the Executive Secretary took a conservative
approach and assigned a quarterly sampling frequency for well NtW-24 at Part I.E.l(a).
The September 2009 SOB also stated: "In the event that DUSA provides the necessary
information, the Executive Secretary may reconsider this decision and modify the Permit as
needed." On November 3,2009 DUSA submitted (by e-mail) hydraulic testing results for
well MW-24, in the form of a November 3,2009 technical report prepared by Hydro Geo
Chem,Inc. (HGC). The November 3,2009 DUSA submittal is included as Attachment4.
In this report, HGC performed slug testing in monitoring well NNV-24 to determine the
hydraulic conductivity of the formation adjacent to the well. A pressure transducer and data
loggers were used to measure water levels during the withdrawal tests in the well. The
pressure transducer was lowered to a depth that was below the lowest point to which the
bailer would be injected. A bailer was lowered into the water column in the well and the
water level was allowed to return to static conditions. Once static conditions were achieved,
the bailer was removed and the data was recorded at 5-second intervals until water levels in
the well had fully recovered.
Data recorded by the transducer was transferred to the analyical program AQTESOLV rM to
evaluate the slug test data. Test data were reduced and analyzed using the Bouwer-Rice and
KGS solutions available in AQTESOLV rM software. HGC reported that the hydraulic
conductivity values for monitoring well MW-24 are consistent with values observed in other
monitoring wells at the site. Pore velocity (average linear groundwater velocity) in well
MW-24wasshown tobe2.5feetlyear. Afterreviewof theNovember3,2009 HGCslugtest
report, DRC staff have approved the reported aquifer permeability near well MW-24. For
details, see Attachment 5, below.
ito
26
Public Participation Su
January 20,2009
As described in the DUSA Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit - December I,2004
Statement of Basis, there are two different frequencies of routine groundwater monitoring at
the White Mesa Mill, as follows:
o Semi-annual (2-times/year) where groundwater velocity is less than 10 feet/year, and
o Quarterly (4-times lyear) where groundwater velocity is equal to or greater than 10
feetlyear.
Because well MW-24 has a groundwater velocity less than 10 feet/year, the Executive
Secretary has re-assigned.a semi-annual sampling frequency to well NNV-24 in Parts I.E.1(b)
and I.E.l(c) of the Permit.
o
mmary
27
Public Participation Su
January 20,2009
Public Comments
October 8, 2009: Scott Clow (Environmental Programs Director - Ute Mountain Ute Tribe)
Written comments (Received via email on October 8,2009 from Colin Larrick)
October 8,2009: Sarah Fields, representing Uranium Watch, Living Rivers, and Glen
Canyon Group / Sierra Club, Written comments (Received via email October 8, 2009)
October 8, 2009: David C. Frydenlund (DUSA Vice President Regulatory Affairs and
Council) Comments (Written comments received via email October 8, 2009)
October 7 ,2009 Transcript of Public Hearing, Blanding Utah, Verbal Comments from: Sara
Fields representing Uranium Watch, Living Rivers, and Glen Canyon Group / Sierra Club
o
mmar
28
o
ummaryPublic Participation S
January 20,2009
References
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1989, "Statistical analysis of ground-water
monitoring data at RCRA facilities: Interim final guidance," 530-SW-89-026, Office
of Solid Waste, Permits and State Programs Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency,401 M Street, S.W. Washington, D.C.20460.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1992, "Statistical analysis of ground-water
monitoring data at RCRA facilities: Addendum to Interim final guidance," Office of
Solid Waste, Permits and State Programs Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 40 lM Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460.
Denison Mines (DUSA) Corp., March 8,2006, "RE: GROUND WATER DISCHARGE
PERMIT NO UGW370OO4 WHITE MESA MILL [Plugging and Abandonment Plan
for Deep Water Supply Wells at Sitel," 3 pp., 2 figures, 1 appendix.
Denison Mines (DUSA) Corp., June 19, 2007, "Liner System Details Cell4A White Mesa
Mill, Blanding Utah," I figure (5 of 7) [transmittedvia6ll9l07 email from Harold
Roberts (DUSA) to David Rupp (DRC)1.
Denison Mines (DUSA) Corp., November 21,2007, "Re: White Mesa Uranium Mill State of
Utah Groundwater Discharge Permit No. UGW37OOO4 - Infiltration and
Contaminant Transport Modeling Report [includes lll07 modeling report by MWH
Americas Inc.,"
Denison Mines (DUSA) Corp., June 18, 2008, "sampling Plan for Seeps and Springs In the
Vicinity of the White Mesa Uranium Mill," 2 pp., I figure, and 1 attachment.
Hurst, T.G. and D.K. Solomon, May, 2008, "summary of Work Completed, Data Results,
Interpretations and Recommendations for the July,2007 Sampling Event at the
Denison Mines, USA, White Mesa Uranium Mill Near Blanding lJtah," unpublished
report by the University of Utah Department of Geology and Geophysics, 62 pp.
[transmitted via 5/18/08 email from Kip Solomon to Loren Morton (DRC)].
INTERA, Inc., Prepared for Denison Mines (USA) Co.p., December 2006, "Background
Groundwater Quality Report: Existing Wells. For Denison Mines (USA) Corp.'s
White Mesa Mill Site, San Juan County, Utah."
INTERA, Inc., Prepared for Denison Mines (USA) Corp., April 30, 2008. "Revised
Background Groundwater Quality Report: New Wells. For Denison Mines (USA)
Corp.'s White Mesa Mill Site, San Juan County, Utah."
Geosyntec Consultants, Prepared for Denison Mines (USA) Corp., May 15, 2OO7 . "Analysis
of Slimes Drain." 66 pp.
Hydro Geo Chem, Inc,, Prepared for Denison Mines (USA) Corp., November 3,2009. "MW-
24Letter Report." l3 pp. [transmitted via 1ll3l09 email from David Frydenlund
(DUSA) to Loren Morton (DRC).
29
o
SummarPublic Paticipation
January 20,2009
URS Corporation, NIay 22,2007, "Review Findings Denison Mines "Cell 44, Lining System
Design Report, Response to DRC Request for Additional Information - Round 7
Interrogatory, Cell 4A Design", Dated May 15, 200'7," unpublished consultants
memorandum, 7 pp., [transmitted via 5130107 email from Britt Quinby (URS) to
Loren Morton and David Rupp (DRC)1.
Utah Division of Radiation Control, November 23,2004, "Review of Hydro Geo Chem,Inc.
Report - Report on Perched ZoneWater Movement, White Mesa Mill Site, near
Blanding, Utah, October 20,2004," unpublished regulatory document from Dean
Henderson to Loren Morton 3 pp.,2 tables, and4 figures.
Utah Division of Radiation Control, June 25, 2007 , "White Mesa Uranium Mill, Blanding,
Utah Cell4A Relining Project Design Approval," letter from Dane Finerfrock to
Ron F. Hochstein 5 pp.
Utah Division of Radiation Control, November 16,200l, "Revised Hydrogeologic Report -
Groundwater Discharge Permit (Permit), PartI.H.2, Denison Mines (USA) White
Mesa Mill, near Blanding, IJtah," unpublished regulatory document from Dean
Henderson to Loren Morton 5 pp., 1 figure, 3 tables.
Utah Division of Radiation Control, January 28,2008, "Nitrate Contamination Investigation
and Corrective Action Plan, White Mesa Uranium Mill Near Blanding, Utah:
Stipulated Consent Agreement," letter from
Utah Division of Radiation Control, August 18, 2008, "Request For Information," letter from
Loren B. Morton to Harold Roberts 6 pp.
Utah Division of Radiation Control, March 14,2008, Public Participation Summary, Ground
WaterDischarge Permit, DUSA, Permit No. UGW370004.
Utah Division of Radiation Control, July 2, 2008, "RE: DUSA Cell 4,A. Construction: Two
Items noted," e-mail from Greg Corcoran (Geosyntec) to David Rupp (DRC) I pp.
Utah Division of Radiation Control, February 2,2009, "Infiltration and Contaminant Transport
Modeling Report: DRC Review Comments, Request for Additional Information," letter
from Thomas Rushing, P.G to David Frydenlund 8 pp.
Utah Division of Radiation Control, September,2009, "Statement of Basis for a Uranium
Milling Facility at White Mesa, South of Blanding, I'Jtah," unpublished regulatory
document, 42pp., and 3 attachments.
Utah Division of Radiation Control, November L6 2009, "Infiltration and Contaminant
Transport Modeling Report: Confirmatory Action Letter Regarding Deliverables," letter
from Dane Finerfrock to David Frydenlund 2 pp.
Utah Division of Water Quality, September 1,2009, Administrative Rules for Ground Water
Quality Protection, R3l6-6, Utah Administrative Code.
Utah Division of Water Quality, September 2,2009, Draft Ground Water Discharge Permit,
DUSA, Permit No. UGW310004
30
FIGURB 1
White Mesa Site Map of the Nitrate and Chloride Plumes
and Groundwater Contours for the
1" Quarter,2009 (March) Sampling Event
,re o rtrFigure 1
White Mesa Site Map
of the Nitrate and Chloride
Plumes and Ground Water Contours
for the 1st Quafter 2009 (March)
Samping Event
MW-'t 8@: <c.05
WW-2
*
MW-19
31e:s
, t^.._-r\
wirdLife- --)L*-)
Ponds
xfr{)\.'l1$
| .rii. i
o
TW4-23o
7_?Iw1-11 Tw4-13TW4-2 0zl.i OC.5jlr#i'-zcr orw+-e
Tw4-1o -1:: <o'1
:l 7.5Tw4-4 t.6'' O TW4-14Itl.? oTW4-6 )a:oll 22
MW-22o
i: 0.7
e
MW-3
,;;, e<0.23
MW-216
i] ig
MW-20(E
Legend
Monitoring WellWith Ni(rate and
Chloride Concenlrations mg/L
Chloroform well O
Tailling Cell Monitor well (E
Piezomeler O
Ground Water Contour (Feet)
Nitrats lsoconcentration (mg/L)
Chloride lsomn@ntration (mg/L)
Lsach Field
TW4-24o
24.4
il
ATTACHMENT 1
Public Comments for the DUSA
Permit Modification
DEN*oilF)&&
TVlINES
October 8, 2009
Denison Mlnes (USA) Corp.
1050 17th Street, Sulte 950
Denver, CO 80165
USA
Tel :303 628-n98
Fax : [phone]
urwrr.denisonmines,com
Mr. Dane L. Finerfrock
9o-Executive Secretary
Utah Water Quality Board
State of Utah Depirrtment of Environmental euality168 North 19S0 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4BSO
Re: Public Notice of a Modification t-g the Ground water euality Discharge permit No.ucw370004 forthe white Mesa Mif :cdmmJniiiio"niio,{ friirljiisaf Gorp.
Dear Mr. Finerfrock:
Reference is made to the Public Notice.(the "Notice]) of a modification to the ground water
}Iryfl:iX,Ts%i'ff h$'*.il,,.I',.13.s,1*ortll':* j'1"lt.lyt}j+"u,ffi f H'tilgHi
i-8339:. secretaiv or the utan witdiouhlitv doalo tii,ilri.cuiii,e seci,iil#)Ln septemner
RSi,ltj' has the following comments on the draft modified permit that was published with the
1. Part l.B.
The latest data used for the october 2007. Flevised Background ^R_eport for Existing wells wasJune 2007, and the latest data useoloi in,j-Ab,.i 2666''HJrir"o Background Report for New
ffill:#3i.'ecember 2007. Therefore, it woulo be fi* ac';;rate to ina-ngJ ihe'first parr of that
"based on oroundwlte.r..!fllrple.s..coilected through June 2007 for exist
1a11l-ll yry^,:2rp[ f,. l{Wji]"M'{vl 1 , i4w:ir,-MW_i;, 'irrfr"_r s, MW-17,
June-2007 for existing wells14, I\rW-1S, MW-17, MW-l8,MW-l 9, MW-26 and ..MW-02- and thrdusr, oec'erol r' iodi ioi"i"il rir'd ilUi-d;'yw'qp' MW-24, MW-2s, Mw-22, Mw-z'a, Mw-rg.-ifl /--sb ind MW-sr n,rs,,,.,ito. . ."H*'q,., MW-24, MW-2s, Mw-zi, naw-ze,-Mw--r5, rrnni-"sb'ino niiru-di, #;,#i
2. Part 1.D.6(c)
As discussed with Division of Fladiation -control ('Dic') staff, Denison cannot commit toreducing the maximum head in cell +A to r toot ibcive ti',1'rrvrr-, nor to commit to a time frameof 6.4 vears to achieve a specific nead-level.--id'ito&'maiiru*i h;il ;io'i.+ year tirne
frame reflect the design criteria used for the slimes drain system in Cell 4A. These design
criteria are theoretical and are based on a number of assumptions and estimates. Denison
believes these assumptions and estimates to be reasonable and conservative and that the
design criteria are appropriate for Cell 44. Denison's decision to proceed on ihis basis was
approved by the Executive Secretary. However, Denison cannot guarantee that the system will
perform in the future exactly as designed. This attempts to impose a level of accuracy that is
unrealistic and that is beyond Denison's control. ln order to address these issues, we propose
that Part 1.D.6(c) be revised to read as follows:
c) Slimes Drain Monthly and Annual Average Recovery Head Criteria - after the
Permittee initiates pumping conditions in the slimes drain layer in Cell 44, the
Permittee witl provide 1) continuous operation of the existing dewatering system,
reasonable rnaintenance excepted; and 2) continuous declining fluid heads in the
slimes drain layer, in a manner equivalent to the requirements found in Part
1.D.3(b) until such time as the maximum head in the tailings (as measured from
the lowest point of the upper flexible membrane liner) is 1.0 feet or less, or
otherwise approaches its asymptotic limit as approved by the Executive
Secretary.
3. Part 1.E.6(h)
Paragraph 3.0 of the Mill's Sampling Plan for Seeps and Springs in the Vicinity of the White
Mesa Uranium Mill sets out a procedure for dealing with seeps and springs that are effectively
dry and cannot be sampled after repeated attempts. Those procedures do not require prior
Executive Secretary approval for the omission of samples in those circumstances. Therefore,
we suggest that Parl 1.E.6(h) be revised to read as follows:
h. Sample Omission - in the course of each annual sampling event, the
Permittee shall sample and analyze, or atternpt to sample and analyze, all six
seeps and springs identilied in Table 1 of the currently approved Sampling Plan for
Seeps and Springs in the Vicinity of the White Mesa Uranium Mill. The Permittee
shall not omit sampling of any seep or spring during said annual event, without
prior written approval of the Executive Secretary, unless the omission is in
accordance with such Plan for any seeps or springs that are dry and not capable of
being sampled."
4. Part 1.E.7(f)
The phrase "lf a discrepancy is identified . . ." in the last sentence of Part 1.E.7(0 is vague and
difficult to apply with precision in practice. ln order to provide more certainty, we suggest that
the phrase "the applicable provisions of the" be added before the word "currently'' in that
sentence. This will tie the requirements of the Permit to the more specific procedures set out in
the Liner Maintenance Provisions, which are capable of being applied with precision in practice.
5. Part 1.E.10
The following claritying changes are suggested:
a) Change paragraph 10a to read "One surface impounded wastewater location at each
of Tailings Cells 1, 3, and 4A";
aEN$a{r&a
MINES
Add the words "each of'before the word Tailings in paragraph 10b;The subparagraphs in paragraph.l0 should be-renuinbeid do that ihere is not a repeatof subparagraph letters a., b. and c.; andln subparagraph 9., Prior Notification, delete the words 'Tieldwork of' and add thep-|rrg!e "gnder 10.a, b and c" after the words "sample coilection". There is no other'Tieldwork" that would..require notice to the Exeiutive Secretary under the pirn;
therefore, reference to fieldwork should be eliminated.
6. Part 1.G.2
The Ground Water Compliance Limits have been set in the Permit to take into account themean and standard deviations or their equivalent, such that anything less than two consecutiveexceedances of the GWCLs would not be considered to be staiisticitty significant. rnerefoie, ifparagraph ?.(qXt) is to be deleted, then p.ar?g.rap! 2(!) shoutd atso b? deleted. neiiinihgparagraph 2(b) is confusing, given the way that the GWCLs have been calculated, tor tne samEreasons that retaining paragraph 2(a)(1) would be confusing. Both paragraphs should bedeleted. .rl."v merely restat-e the apipiib6ble regutations. Hofiever, it rjarigiaiih itoj iJio neretained in the Permit, then paragrapn a1a11t) should also be retained'in th"e permit.'We cinsee no reason for keeping one ol the paragraphs and deleting the other.
7. Part 1.H.4
As discussed with DRC staff 9n ltlay 1.1, 2009, Denison does not believe that it is necessary toadd Part 1.H.4 to the Permit. Further, the requirements of Part 1.H.4 cannot Oe compiieO wiiti aidrafted.
The. Background Reports prepared by.lNTERA, lnc. demonstrate that the Mill's tailings cells aren-ol!9qk[9 to groundwater. The coriclusions ol those reports were confirmed by th; Univ;r;ittof Utah Styqy, which evaluated existing wells that were 6onsidered to Oe tne most indicative dfany potentialtailings cell leakage. Theie is no need.to perform yet another study to verity inos!conclusions, particularly given the considerations below.
lherg, are currently. over.40 monitoring constituents in the Permit. These include chloride,tluoride, sulfate and uranium which are all good indicator parameters. As discussed at ouimeeting.a.nd in our.June 5, 2009 correspond-ence with suppiorting INTERA memoiinOur;;rypotential future tailings cell leakage td groundwater wiit'be p-ickeO up bv these indibato?parameters before any other constituents-. There cannot be h leat< to qr6undwater of anvsignificance without one or more of these_parameters indicating an upwald trenO. Howeveialthough an upward trend in one or more of ihese indicator constTtuents'is necessary in orolr trireach a conclusion that the tailingg cells are leaking, a rising kend in one oihore of theseconstituents does not necessarily imply that the taiiings cell-s are leaking. nistng trenlJlnindicator parameters could also be due tb natural influenies.
As we discussed in our Mqy 1 1, 2009 meeting, nothing will be gained from characterizing at thistime the chemical composition, noble gas ggryrposltion-, and ag-e of the grounOwaier in flie wettsthat were not covered'by the Universi-ty of Utah Study. Any-potential"future eiceedance of iGWCL would be evaluat-ed at the time-of the exceeddnce bir ine most appropiiate methods inthe circumstances. This would most likely include a spatiat ano teniporai Snatysis oi tneconstituent in questio.n together with all oth6r constituents in the well, wiih a primiry tocus onthe indicator parameters. lf such an analysis is not conclusive, suih as wlien one or more
b)
c)
d)
DENIEON:,&A
MINES
indicator parameters have also risen or have demonstrated an upward trend or trends andnatural influences cannot.be ruled out, then a further inatviis,r.;irId be $irormeo. Thisanalysis may include an isotopic.analysis, depending on tnticircrrri"nr"5.-"tt ,n isotooicanalysis were to be pedormed at that time,'theh tne r6sults
-oittrx ariaffiiirouro' od'ruiJrifi[
pgpgl9inq or th-e.,circumstanceb. . { an tsotofiicanalysis were to be pedormeO at ttrat time,'theh the rnot the results of an isotopic anatysis performed today.
ln addition to the fact,that the analyses contemplated by pan LH.4 are not necessary and willprovide little, if a.ny, information releVant to_1he gh3tv,sis..9i a potential iuture GWCI exceedance,there are a number of practical problems associatet with subh an anafyJii. A;;; discussed atour May 11, 2009 meeting, the.analysescontemplateO Oy eart 1.H.4 hie noi-mainitieim tie.,there are.no generally accepted methods), they,Aie iostti'to-p'.rroirli["y #;"t capabte ofbeing performed. at cirmmerbial laboratori6s, ario ttrey Carinbl'oe perrormetr in 1re go:Arttirneframe proposed in Part 1.H.4.
The required anatysis can only beI ne requlreo analvsls can. only, be p.erformed at a limited nurnber of university laboratories.Those lhboratoried are not utdtr-cefiitied and th;,re #e no"iFi-Epiioi"i",i.,?ii.,ods for such
Itly_","-.: -F,$ti.t, Denison cannot contror the timing and resurts
are no EPA-approved methods for suchrg and results from such non-accreditedvr t-quvt 9wttvLIlaboratories. This is because Denison would noi tiive i cr''Jce of commercial laboratories from
xl'-.Lt?,:PlT,stl:j,tllg.rgguilgg yg!. For exampre, Deniion too-riipriii oilde sampreilar<enby the. University gf Ut?.h in Juty 2oo7 and gnqasie-d_Jne-oiii'Jt-"* I'r'"irr'ni6".,iher universitylaboratories.to perform_the tritium/helium analyslsl Rfter iii montns of waitino for the anatvricarAfter six months of waiting for the analyticdlity projects, Denison tinallv called oli tnet11yl!tr and being deferred behind other uhiversity projects, oenison tinanalysis.. .Denison cannot be held responsible for failuie t6 meet a scheduleis not within its control.
days.contemplalqd by part t.H.4.' A more reatistic time irame wourii ili6d
It took the Universitv.of. Utah. approximately o.ng ygqr to complete its study. planning started inlle sPllg ot.2oa7, fetowork-ivlJpiirrdi,neo in'Jrt,.-2057'lno the finat report was issued inIle Spr:lg ot Z}ezifieldwork ilas performeO in'.luiy,-zoo7'ino tneMav, 2008. lt is unrealistic to exnedt thai Denie"t..X"'lx r'..,i o,,^h ^Muy,
nally called oli the
e when such failure
the
report was issued in
days contemplated by p?f 1.H.4. A more realistic time frame woutd oe S6tf dari, as ,equiieO ovthe University of Utah. However even a time frame of sos Oays ppy not be achievabl-;; giGi
.?:li:"fl."119j1ryf"-.g1ll?i1?g sctredule or ths non-iomrnercin 6b6,ak;,viiii6orutories rhat
Li:.grllittf ,t?,el,eqct that Denison couro nave'iuc-n I iiudy plerrormeo in tnJeo
.qt1",q.9l Pfl.1:!..1: l.lgt"realislic time-framewoutd be 36d ciays, is reqriieO ov
would be required to perform the analysis.
fl, .YT.tnury,.the evaluations required by proposed Part 1.H.4 are not necessary to establish thatthe,Mill's taitings ceils have noi teared io oate;inev wtli'biovioelittre,-itinyl iirormation thatcould be of use in evaluating a potential futuie taltings 'ietL lei[i-'ilirr o" 'lbrtfv; wiii noi Gpertormed in accordance with-acc.gpted EPA guida.nge,"wiliiat<g ii.ieiii fie:y-;i'to iompl-ete;
3n-d the timing. ol completign oJ tfr'e stuqy wiil nqi G'*ithin penisofs ContioL As i iEtrlit,proposed Part LH.4 shoutd be eliminated fiom the permit.
8. Part l.H.S
Once the new decontamination P?g is co.nstructed, Mill personnel will be able to check the leakdetection system.weekly and will be able to,tak€'the iiiO-out ot serviceln,iuafi, in ilddr ili-nspect the inte.grity of ihe steel liner in each ot the sbuiin[ ponoJano tne viJuirrv eiposeJsurface areas of the concrete pad.. However, it will not be fuEsIbd 6 iildrt tn""int"firitybi theconcrete surfaces below the sfeel liner in eaih tank, as it witinoi G iioiJifirJio'r*more the steetliner from each tank. lnspections. oJ such conCret6 iuriaces are not necessary, giren iliJiicithat the tanks are lined with steel liners, a leak Oeteition ivstem is cnectieO 'we-eXty, ;;a th;integrity of the steel liners is checked'annuiirf- neieie-rices to concrete sur-faces should
4
DENISOND/,/.
MINES
therefore be removed from Part l.f-,{.5,. or it should be made clear that only visually exposedareas of the concrete pad need to be inspected annualty and that this Ooed noi inCiuOe'Lreaiunder the steel tank liners,
Ji.you have. any que,_slions or,lqOuile any.further information, please contact the undersigned.we suggest that we have a callto dlscusi the foregoing commeints ind youi responses to inem,prior to finalization of the Permit language.
Hon F. Hochstein
Harold R. Roberts
Steven D. Landau
David E. Turk
DENISONJ),/-/'
M!NES
October 8r 2009
I)ane finerfrock
Executive Secretary
Utah Division of Rrdiation Control
P.O, Box 144E50
Salt Lake City, UT 8411H850
Dear Executive Secretary Finerfrock:
The Ute Morurtain Ute Tribe of Colorado, New Mexico and Utah, through its Environmental
Prograurs Deparfrnent, hereby subrnits the following comments for the record regarding
proposed revisions to Groundwater Permit Nuurber UGW370004:
The Tribe commends the Division of Radiation Contol (DRC) for the work it has done in
inueasing the regulatory oversight of the White Mesa Uranium Mill since its authority was
grantod in 2004. The technical understanding of environmental ramifications to White Mesa is
of concem to the Tribe and its White Mesa Community, and we sincerely appreciate that there is
a higher level of scrutiny being researched and docurnented to ensure the protection ofpublic
health and e,lrvironment there. We do have three items we would like to be assured of in this
revised permit's implementation and subsequent perrnits thereafter.
We implore the Division of Radiation Control to require ftll implementation of Section I.H.4,
the isotopic signatures and groundwater age study, similar to the University of Utah Study for the
wells that were iot included in that study. De,nison Mines USA Corp. (DUSA) bemefitted greatly
from the DRC's commissioning ofthat original study, and it has also benefitted the Tribe and
our technical understanding of groundwater on White Mesa. We hope that the DRC u'ill require
oompliance with the assigned schodule for that study, as well, without any "schedule resets" or
pcrmit revisions to accomplish it, as is the case with the slime drains DMT monitoring.
The Tribe further rcquests that the permit state explicitly that the groundwater mounding from
the wildlife ponds at the facility be defined as, 'tnill operations." The DRC clearly understands
the implications of this being an area of uncertainty, and we appreciate the position that has beeir
taken in the Statement of Basis regarding the downgradient wells and mixing of groundwaters,
regardless of tailings discharges. Still, it must be clearly defined in the permi! that the influence
from man-rnade ponds on the facility on any groundwater constifuent or plume
of constituents is the result of mill operations and should not be considered "natural," a t€rm
used by DUSA in its response to the original draft permit revision regarding statistically
significant increasing trends (Statement ofBasis, page 8). In the long run, this concrete
definition will help all of the parties involved.
Finally, in the draft revised permit, Section H.2.11(strilethrough version had a strikethrough
number for this section), a plan for the evaluation of deep supply well WW-2, does not seem to
have an implementation schedule. As this well creates a direct conduit to the Tribe's drinking
water source in the White Mesa Ute Community, as well as the communities of Bluff, Blanding,
and Montezuma Creek, we request that an implementation schedule be included with periodic
monitoring ofthe arutular casing. Similarly, in Section H.2, the Infiltration and Contaminant
Transport Modeling Work Plan and Report lacks a compliance schedule, and we request that one
be required of the permittee.
Thank you for your consideration of these important issues.
:''*::'kfr*Scott Clow
Environmental Programs Director
Ute Mountain Ute Tribe
Uronium Wotch
P. 0. Box 344
Moob, Utoh 84532
435-Zt}-0166
October 8,2009
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Radiation Control
P.O. 144850
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4850
Re: Modification to the Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit No. UGW370004'
Denison Mines (USA) Corporation, White Mesa Uranium Mill
Dear Mr. Finerfrock and Division of Radiation Control Staff:
Below please find comments on the Modification to the Ground Water Quality Discharge
Permit (Permit) for the Denison Mines (USA) Corporation (DUSA) White Mesa
Uranium Mill, submitted on behalf of Uranium Watch, Living Rivers, and the Glen
Canyon Group of the Sierra Club.
1. Statement of Basis
1.1 Wildlife Ponds
Comment:
The Division of Radiation Control (DRC) should require, rather than just suggest, that
DUSA create lined wildlife ponds at the site, for the following reasons:
a. It is imperative that both DUSA and the DRC are able to determine-in a timely
manner-whether contaminants from the tailings impoundments are moving into the
aquifer. Any increasing and elevated concentrations of the constituents in the ground
water at the White Mesa Uranium Mill may indicate that such leakage has occurred. If
there are questions, as there have been over the past few years, about the source ofthose
elevated concentrations, there will be delay in the identifying the source and delay in
developing a mitigation plan. This is not acceptable.
b. Data and information from the ground-water monitoring wells should not be
compromised by the presence of constituents that have been mobilized by the water from
the wildlife ponds. If the ponds remain unlined, identification of the source will be
o
ControDivision of Radiation
October 8,2009
delayed by the need for additional studies to determine the source of the increased levels
of uranium and other constituents in the wells.
c. The unlined ponds will no longer provide a source of water to the aquifer, if they are
replaced by lined ponds. This should result in the gradual decrease in levels of uranium
and other metals that have shown increased levels in the monitoring wells.
d. Also, the lined ponds should be placed in another location in order to facilitate the
drying out of the aquifer in the vicinity of the unlined ponds and so than any leakage
from the lined ponds can be readily detected.
e. If the unlined ponds are removed and replaced with lined ponds in another location and
the increasing and elevated trace metal concentrations do not decrease, or continue to
increase over time, then there may be another source of increase in the contaminants of
concern and more studies will have to be conducted.
f. If the unlined ponds are left in place, there is no way to verify that increased in
contaminants in the monitoring wells result from the water leaking from the ponds and
mobilizing pre-existing constituents in the soils and rock.
g. Removal of the ponds and relocation of lined ponds would also allow for the study of
the changes in the shallow aquifer geochemistry from a benign source and trace the
recovery over time.
h. The wildlife ponds are a part of the mill operation. If the unlined ponds cause the
mobilization of contamination in the ground water, the ponds should be removed,
whether or not they are secondary in nature and whether or not they influence the setting
of Ground Water Compliance Limits (GWCLs) for down-gradient wells.
1.2 Subterranean paths
Comment:
The University of Utah studies also show that there are subterranean paths that might
facilitate the movement of leakage from the tailings into unexpected areas and depths in
the vicinity of the tailings impoundments in the future. The DRC and DUSA should
continue to identify and evaluate these pathways, which also might facilitate the
movement of water downward and into geological layers below the surface layers at the
site.
l.2Draft Permit and Statement of Basis
Comment:
a. Uranium Watch agrees that the Supplemental Isotopic Ground water and Surface
Water Investigation and Report compliance schedule item found at Part I.H.4 of the
Permit should stand. It is imperative that additional studies are conducted at the White
o
on ControDivision of Radiati
October 8,2009
Mesa Mill site and that the most reliable research ground water analysis technology is
used.
b. The DRC should create a schedule table for all submittals related to the Permit: the
Supplemental Isotopic Ground Water and Surface Water Investigation and Report,
Nitrate contaminant plume, and other required submittals, and post it on the DRC
website.
1.3. Tailings Cells 2 and 3 Slimes Drain Requirements: Performance Standards
lPart I.D.3(b)1, Monitoring Requirements [Part I.E.7(b)], and Reporting [Part
r.F.11I
Comment:
1.3.1. The discussion of the monthly reports for the slimes drain monitoring, states that
"none of the monthly recovery data collected in2007 , and only two monthly tests
collected in 2008 met the 90-hour duration and the stable water level criteria." However,
the agency findings were not presented until March 30,2009. It appears that the DRC is
remiss in evaluating the monthly monitoring reports and correcting the test data
collection and reporting processes.
Because of past non-compliance, the DRC should evaluate each monthly report within a
pre-determined period of time and with particular attention so that any problems are
identified and corrected within weeks, not months or years.
When the DRC is slow to review and respond to data and information that documents
problems with DUSA's compliance with sampling and reporting requirements, that leads
to further problems and leads DUSA to believe that this is not a priority with the DRC, so
it need not be a priority with DUSA.
1.4 Resolved Compliance Schedule Items
Comment:
One of the compliance problems has been the failure of DUSA to conform to the EPA
Guidance: "Statistical analysis of ground-water monitoring data at RCRA facilities:
Interim final guidance" (1989) and the Addendum to Interim final guidance (1992). It is
hard to understand why the DUSA was not aware that they must comply with that
guidance. It seems that the DRC should have informed DUSA long ago that they would
expect DUSA to use the guidance for their statistical analyses of the ground-water
monitoring dataat the White Mesa Uranium Mill.
In the future, DRC should inform DUSA and any other 11e.(2) byproduct material
licensee-in a timely manner-of the guidance documents that the DRC expects them to
rely on for data gathering and analysis and for any other purpose related to compliance
with DRC requirements.
Division of Radiation Control
October 8,2009
2.Draft Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit
The draft Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit at2.l H. CouplraNcE ScHDu.E
Rrquneunx'rs, states, "The Permittee will comply with the schedules as described and
summarized below...." Two of the compliance schedule items are: Compliance ltem2:
Infilration and Contaminant Transport Modeling Work Plan and Report; and
Compliance Item 3: Plan for Evaluation of Deep Supply Well WW-2.
Comment:
A schedule is "a plan for carrying out a process or procedure, giving lists ofintended
events and times." What is missing in the Compliance Schedule and in the Statement of
Basis for Items 2 and 3 is a time for the submittal of the two referenced items. Right
now, the submittal of the Infiltration and Contaminant Transport Modeling Work Plan
and Report and the Plan for Evaluation of Deep Supply Well WW-2 appears to be open-
ended. The Permit needs to include dates certain for the submittals of those documents;
that is, an actual "schedule."
3. Availability of Documents
Comment:
I appreciate that the DRC posted the pertinent Permit documents on the DRC website
along with the public notice. I would imagine that the DRC will be posted DUSA's
Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit renewal application and other documents related
to the permit renewal in a timely manner.
However, I am very discouraged by the fact that the DRC and Department of
Environmental Quality have never developed a document control system that would
enable the DRC to post all relevant licensing documents on the DRC website within a
few weeks of the receipt of or date of the document. This would include inspection
reports, reports submitted by DUSA in compliance with the Permit and source material
license, correspondence, etc. It is both time consuming and costly to access DRC
licensing documents at this time, and one never knows what may have been missed.
When I was at the DRC office in September to access DRC's licensing documents for the
White Mesa Mill, there were some records that were not available that day for me to view
and copy.
On at least two occasions I came before the Radiation Control Board with my concerns
about the availability of documents since Utah became a Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) Agreement State for uranium recovery facilities and l le.(2)
byproduct material impoundments in August 2004 (over 5 years ago). The NRC had
made all uranium recovery licensing documents readily available on their electronic
reading room system (ADAMS) since November 1999, and I thought that a similar
system would benefit the DRC, industry, and the public. I was told at the Board meetings
that the DRC was working with the state government to development a system to make
licensing documents publicly available and that that would happen in the near future. It
o
ControlDivision of Radiation
October 8,2009
has never happened, and I see no evidence whatsoever that it will ever happen or that
there was ever a serious effort to make it happen. The information provided to me at twoofficial Board meetings was misleading and does not engender respect or confidence im
Therefore, I request that the DRC request funding from the State Legislature, request anincrease in licensing fees, or find other."rourcerlo develop a compiehensive m6ans toindex and post all licensing documents related to uranium recovery operations in Utah.In the meantime, I request that the DRC make every effort to post more DUSA licensingdocuments on their website, starting with the inspections reports and SERp reports.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment,
the Board and the DRC.
Sarah M. Fields
Program Director
And on behalf of:
Living Rivers
P.O. Box 466
Moab, Utah84532
And,
Glen Canyon Group/Sierra Club
P. O.Box622
Moab, Utah84532
ATTACHMENT 2
Public Meeting Transcript
October 7,2009
DENISON MINES (USA) CORPORATION WHITE MESA URANIU14
MILL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT MODIFICATION
PUBLIC HEARING
0ctober 7,2009 * 7:00 p.m
Location:Blanding Arts
790 West 200
Blanding,
and Events Center
South
Utah
Reporter: Heidi
Cert'i f ied Court Reporter
Hunter, RPRfor the State of Utah
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
L0
L1
L2
13
L4
L5
16
L7
L8
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
APPEARANCES
FOR THE UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL:
LOREN t.IORTON
PHIL GOBLE
Department of Env'i romental Quali ty158 N. 1950 W.
5al t Lake Ci ty, UT 8411 4-4850Telephone: 80L.536. 4250Facsimile: 533.4097
lmorton@utah. gov
pgoble@utah. gov
CitiCourt, LLC(801) s32-3441.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
t1
T2
13
L4
L5
15
t7
L8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt,(801) s32-
LLC
3 44L
PROCEEDINGS
HR. l,l0RTON: Good evening. It's
7:00 o'c1ock, and I'd like to start this public
meeti ng. My name i s Loren Morton, and I work for the
Utah Division of Radiation Control. My associate Phil
Goble here is with me and Heidi is our recorder this
evening. 0ur purpose is to rece'ive oral or written
comments regardi ng a draft, a gr ound water di scharge
permit and modif ication for the Den'ison M'ines USA
Corp. Uranium Mi11 just south of town here.
. I'11 make a brief opening statement and
then allow t'ime for all those who'd like to give
comment tonight to do so. I ask you to step up to
the microphone here and speak into 'i t so we can get
that recorded for the record.
A couple of notes of interest. There was a
si gn-up sheet at the back of the room. If you want
to offer comment to"night, please put your name on
that list, I'11 take I'11 inv'i te those who sign
the list to come up and provide comment in the same
order that they're listed there on the paper.
Another ground rule or two here go over.
I'11 give you five minutes each to say what you'd
like to say and share with us today and one minute
o
L
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
1.L
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
18
19
20
21"
22
23
24
25
C'i tiCourt, LLC(801) s32-3441
remains I'11 give you a warning. 0nce everyone here
has had an opportuni ty to share comments w'i th us and
you have somethi ng more you'd 1 i ke to add, we' I 1
have add'i tional rounds of comment opportuni t'i es, and
we're here until those who are present have said all
that need to say or want to say regarding the
changes to this permit.
0K, Phi1, if you want to go ahead and grab
that list
And wh'i 1e you're doing that, let me make
mention of some of the mai n i ssues that were changed
i n thi s permi t. Two background, ground water, water
quality reports were examined by the division staff.
And from the data presented there'i n, we determined
we needed to reset ground water protection levels or
sometimes they're called compliance. limits for a
number of mon'i tori ng wel l s at the f ac'i 1i ty.
There have been changes in the sampling
frequency for those we11s. Some wells previously,
thei r compli ance status has been changed because of
these updates and the protection or the compliance
limits. There were also some additional standards
determined and presented, proposed for storage of
feed stocking materjals where they are located
outside of the designated feet and stock storage
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
r_0
LL
L2
13
l4
L5
L6
L7
18
19
20
21.
22
23
24
25
area. There was new protocols proposed for liner
repair as it pertains to existing ponds and cells
that have been there historicatly at the s'i te.
There's also been some addi ti onal
requirements for ground water quality monitoring at
nearby seeps and springs and tailings ce11 waste
waters. And the certain of some of the
compliance schedule items that were'i n the original
permit have been satisfied and are proposed to be
removed f rom the pe rm'i t . That ' s ki nd of a bas'i c
synops i s or a summati on of the changes proposed i n
the permi t.
Now, I 'm goi ng to open the t i me to the
audience. 0ur f irst person who'd ljke to speak
tonight is Ms. 5arah Fields, and if you'd step
forward and announce your affif iat'ion and we'11 --
Phil here will watch the clock.
MS. FIELDS: How many, fi ve mi nutes?
MR. GOBLE: Fi ve mi nutes.
MS. FIELDS: My name is Sarah Fietds, and
represent Uranium Watch and Living R'ivers.
I have some j ust some general comments
I think it's amazing after all these years that the
mi11 has operated that they're finally setting the
background leve1s for all the constituents 'i n the
CitiCourt, LLC(801) s32-3441
L
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
L0
1"1
L2
13
L4
15
15
L7
18
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
point of compliance 'i n monitoring we11s. I think
that's a wonderful th'i ng to happen.
I wi 11 be submi tti ng wri tten comments
also, brJt I'm j ust goi ng over some of the poi nts
that I have. I th'ink the D'ivision of Radiat'ion
Control should th'i s is about the wildlife
ponds --the D'i vision of Radiation Control should
require, rather than suggest, that Denison Mines
create f i ned w'i 1dI i fe ponds at the s'i te.
When they're i ncreasi ng an elevated leve1s
of concentrations of contam'i nants in the ground
water, it's really important that as soon as
possi bIe you determi ned whether that may be from
leakage from the tai 1i ngs pi 1e. And i f you sti 1t
have the source of water from the unlined ponds, I
think there would be additional delay 'i n identifying
the source and then develop'i ng a mi ti gat'ion pIan.
So I think leaving them on-site means that data and
information from the monitoring we1.1s is
compromi sed.
If the unf i ned ponds were removed and
1 i ned ponds we re c reated i n anothe r pl ace, that a rea
would have a chance to dry out, and then you would
expect over a period of time that the constituents
that have mobi 1i zed due to the wateli n the unl i ned
CitiCourt, LLC(801) s32-3441
L
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
1L
L2
13
1.4
L5
L5
L7
1.8
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC(801) s32-344t
ponds would show a. decrease. If they didn't show a
decrease, then you might question the source of the
uranium in other constituents because right now just
the assumpti on i s that these i nc reased level s come
f rom come f rom resul t f rom the wate r f rom the
unlined ponds, so that's just an assumption right
now, but 'i f they we re removed you could have - - you
can possi bly veri fy that these consti tuents di d come
because of that.
I think the wildlife ponds are part of the
m'i 11 operation and if the unlined ponds cause
mobiltzat'i on of contamination of ground water, the
ponds should be removed, whether or not they were
secondary 'i n nature and whether or not they
influence the setting of the ground water
concentrat'ion limits for down-gradient we11s.
And then i n tai 1i ng ce1ls two and three,
the slimes drain requirements, performance standards
the monitoring requirements reporting -- and
reporting requirements, the d'i scussion of monthly
reports for the slimes drain monitoring states that
none of the monthly recovery data collected in 2007
and two monthly tests col lected i n 2008 met the 90
to hour duration and the stable water leveI
cri teri a. However, the agency fi ndi ngs were not
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
16
L7
L8
1_9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC(801) s32-344L
presented unt'i 1 March 30, 2009, so there was quite a
while later that these monthly tests were evaluated
and where the Division communicated with Den'i son
that there has been noncompliance, and I feel that
Division Radiation of Control was rather slow in
reviewing and responding to the data and
informat'i on.
I thi nk these - - when Deni son submi ts
documentation, that it should be 'i n monthly reports
or quarter reports, they should be revi ewed as soon
as possible to determine if there are further
problems so that the problems can be rect'i f ied.
Because I think if Denison Mines doesn't feel that
these thing are a priority with the Division of
Rad'i ation Control, then they need not be a priority
w'i th Deni son.
MR. M0RTON: Ms. Fields.
MS. FIELDS: 0h , I 'm beyond I d i dn' t
hear--
MR. !tl0RTON: We've reached five minutes, but
as I examined the list, no one else here wants to talk
toni ght. So unless someone else has changed thej r
mind, then I'11 a1low you to you can continue, no
problem.
M5. FIELDS: My hearing jsn't so great so I
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
I
9
r.0
L1
L2
13
L4
15
L6
L7
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC(801) s32-3441.
missed any. I only have, I don't have a whole
di ssertati on, so 'i t won't take me too long.
MR. t'lORTON: That's fine. If someone else
comes i n the door and deci des they want to speak, I'I1
interrupt you.
l'tS. FIELDS: Terrific.We're on my last
page. 0ne of the problems w'i th the compliance
problems was the fa'i lure of Denison Mines to conform
to EPA guidance on statistical analysis of ground
water monitori ng data at record facif ities, the
interjm final gu'idance. And the addendum to the
interim final gu'idance, I th'ink, in a couple of
instances their analysis had to be sent back because
they di dn't use the EPA gui dance; dnd 'i t seems to me
that the DRC shoutd have informed Denison much earlier
that they woutd expect them to use the guidance for
their statistical analyses of the ground water
monitoring data.
In the draft permi t, my fi rst comments had
to do with your statement of basis or bases. And
then 'i n the draft perm'i t I noti ced that compf i ance
item two, infiltration and contaminate transplant
mon'i toring work plan and report, and then compliance
'i tem three, plan for evaluation of deep supply well
WW-2, didn't really have a schedule. I didn't I
L0
1_
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
1_0
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L5
l7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
couldn't find anything in there that said when these
two the report and then the plan were actually
due, and I think if we're going to have a comptiance
schedule you ought to have a date or some t'ime that
these 'i tems are due. I thi nk some thi ngs were due
with their renewal, their permit renewal, and I
understand that that's been submitted. That's been
summ'i ted their a permit renewal application? I
thought I saw somethi ng that had been subm'i tted on
September 9th, but I don't know i f that's accurate.
MR. MORTON: 5arah, I'I1 be happy to answer
that question for you, but I'm not going to engage in
a debate with you but the answer is yes.
1'lS. FIELDS: 0K I was j us t cu ri ous .
MR. l,l0RTON: Yes, it was submitted and 'i t
was timely.
MS. FIELDS: I 'm I mean, j ust that' s j ust
one of my comments here that I thi nk that you should
put a date certain 'i n there. I don't expect you to
answer, I j ust noti ced i n some other compl i ance
scheduling requirements you actually had a date or
some peri od when they were that 'i t vvasn't j ust an
open ended, and it just seems to me in the permit it's
open ended and it should have a date certain.
l'lR. tl0RTON: We have received it and it was
C'i tiCourt, LLC(801) 532-3441.
11
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L5
t7
L8
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
delivered on time.
tls. FIELDS: We11, I know that date certain,
but I mean, these compli ance i tems two and three, and
I don't know i f they were i ncluded i n the appl jcat'i on
because of course I haven't seen it, because that had
a date certa'i n, so these should have a date certain.
My last comment i s the need for the DRC's
ground water discharge permit and other documents to
be made readily publicly available on the Divis'i on
of Radi ati on Control's websi te.
I know that you have posted documents and
i t was really good to have the these documents
readily avajlable on your website when you pubf ished
your put your noti ce out on the websi te but I
came to the Divis'i on of Radiation Control a long
time ago, and I thi nk I came to weIl, to the
board, the radiation control board, at least two
times discussing the issue of all the licensing
documents, the inspect'ion reports, all the
everything, you know, equivatents what the NRC used
to have on their Adam system.
'l And I was told wel l ,
Division of Environmental Qual
Env'i ronmental Qualjty intended
control system and put things
yeah, they the
ity or Department of
to have a document
up on their website.
CitiCourt, LLC(801) s32-344L
t2
t
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1_0
1L
L2
13
L4
1_5
L5
L7
L8
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
Cit'iCourt, LLC(8ol-) s:2-344L
They were just going to do 'i t for broad agency
system, and I j ust feel now I was mi slead because I
was up i n Salt Lake Ci ty recently, spoke to the head
of the D'i vi s'i on of Ai r Qual i ty, and they had no
intention of puttlng, you know, even applicat'i ons
that have been not'i ced readily available on their
website.
5o I just don't think that this program to
make documents readily available is really in the
works, and I've always felt that the reason for many
of the problems in the uranium milling industry, and
particularly the problems at the Moab Mi11, was
because of a lack of public 'i nvolvement, and that
one of the reasons for the lack of public
involvement 'i s people didn't have ready access to
licensing documents, and I think it's an important
aspect of the public process as part of the
democratic process in the state of Utah.
0kay. Thank you for the opportuni ty to
comment and I'11 be sending my written comments in.
Thank you.
MR. M0RTON: Thank you, Ms. Fields. The
deadf i ne for submi ttal of wri tten comments i s
tomo r row.
MS. FIELDS: Yeah.
13
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
L1
L2
13
L4
15
L5
L7
L8
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
MR. M0RTON: End of business tomorrow. You
can send those in by e-ma'i 1 or through the U.5. Post.
MS. FIELDS: Yeah. 0kay. I t's now 7 :20. No
one el se i n attendance would f i ke to speak so I 'm
goi ng to what 's the word? I 'm goi ng to cal 1 a
recess jn the meeting for the moment. We'11 be here
at least one houli f anyone else wants to arrive and
share thei r thoughts and comments vve'11 receive those
as weIl, but for the moment we'11 recess. We'11 go
off the record.
(Recess. )
l'lR. I|ORTON: It's now 8:00 o'c1ock. The
recess has ended. No one else has come forward to
provide addit'i onal comment, so this meeting'i s now
adjourned. Thank you for your attendance and your
partic'i pation.
(Concluded at 8:00 p.m.)
Cit'i Court, LLC(80L) s32-344L
CERTIFICATE
State of Utah )) ss
)County of Iron
This is to hereby certify that the hearing was
taken by me, Hei di Hunter, a Regi stered Prof ess'i onal
Reporter.
That the said hearing was by, before exam'i nation,duly sworn to test'i fy to the truth, the whole truth, andnothing but the truth in sa'i d cause.
That the said testimony of sa'id wi tnesses were by
me reported in stenotype, and therefore caused to betranscribed into typewriting, and a fu11 and correcttranscription of said testimony was taken andtranscribed is set forth in the forgoing pages numberedfrom 1 to l-3,'inclusive and said witness deposed'in theforegoi ng annexed deposi ti on.
I further certify that I am not kin or otherwise
assoc'iated to any of the part'ies to the said cause ofaction and I am not interested in the event thereof .
WITNESS MY HAND at SaIt
day of 0ctober, 2009.
Lake City, Utah, this 19th
Heidi Hunter, RPR
CitiCourt, LLC(801) s32-344L
ATTACHMENT 3
DUSA GW Permit Final - Redline/Strikeout Version
December 15,2009
Permit No. UGW370004
STATE OF UTAH
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD
SALT LAKE CMY, UTAH 84114-4870
GROUND WATER DISCHARGE PERMIT
In compliance with the provisions of the Utah Water Quality Act, Title 19, Chapter 5, Utah Code
Annotated 1953, as amended, the Act,
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
Independence Plaza, Suite 950
105017th Sheet
Denver, Colorado 80265
is granted a ground water discharge permit for the operation of a uranium milling and tailings
disposal facility located approximately 6 miles south of Blanding, Utah. The facility is located on a
tract of land in Sections 28,29,32, and33, Township 37 South, Range 22East,Salt Lake Base and
Meridian, San Juan County, Utah.
The permit is based on representations made by the Permittee and other information contained in the
administrative record. It is the responsibility of the Permittee to read and understand all provisions
of this Permit.
The milling and tailings disposal facility shall be operated and revised in accordance with conditions
set forth in the Permit and the Utah Ground Water Quality Protection Regulations.
This modified Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit amends and supersedes all other Ground
Water Discharge permits for this facility issued previously.
This Permit shall become effective on
This Permit shall expire IV[arch $;2O[Q.
I SigneO this
-'day
of
-,
2018gg
Co-Executive Secretary
Utah Water Quality Board
Table of Contents
PART I. SPECIFIC PERMIT CONDITIONS......:............................................................... 1
A. GnouNo Wlren C1nsstncatoru....................................................................................... I
B. BacxcnouNo WRrnR Ounurv.......................................................................................... I
C. PeRunLnrans
l. Ground Water Cornpliance Lintits
2. Tailinss Cell Onerations........... ..........2
3. Prohibited Discharses..................................................................................................... 2
D. Drscuancp MrMMtzartoN nNn Besr Av,qLaet-n TecHNol-ocv SreNuanos................... 6
L DMT Design Standards for Existing Tailings Cells l. 2. and 3.....................................6
2. Existing Tailings Cell Construction Authori2ed............................................................ 8
3. Existing Facilit), DMT Performance Standards.............................................................. 8
4" Best Available Technology Requirernents for New Construction ............................... l0
5. BAT Design Standards for Tailines CeII4A................................................................ 1l
6. BAT Pertbrmance Standards for Tailings Cell 4A....................................................... 13
8. Closed Cell Performance Requirements....................................................................... l4
9. Facility Reclamation Requirements.............................................................................. 14
10. Stormwater Management and Spill Control Requirements.......................................... l4
I l. Requirements for Feedstock Material Stored Outside the Feedstock Storage Area..... l5
E. GRouNo WarBR Corr,rplreNcs aNo TpcsNolocv PnnronrtaNcs MoNIroRmc............. l5
1. RoutineGroundwaterComplianceMonitorin9............................................................ l6
2. Groundwater Monitoring: Monitoring Wells MW-20 and MW-22............................ l7
3. Groundwater Head Monitoring .................................................................................... l7
4. Groundwater Monitoring Well Design and Construction Criteria............................... 17
5. Monitorins Procedures for Wells ..... 18
6. White Mesa Seeo and Spring Monitoring.................................................................... 18
7. DMT Performance Standard Monitoring ..................................................................... 19
8. BAT Perfbrmance Standard Monitoring ...................................................................... 20
9. On-site Chemicals Inventorf ........................................................................................ 2l
10. Tailings Cell Wastewater Ouality Monitoring ............................................................. 21
I 1. Groundwater Monitoring Modifications ...................................................................... 22
F. REponrrNc Rneurnnus11rs............................................................................................... 22
l. Routine Groundwater Monitoring Reports................................................................... 22
2. Routine DMT Performance Standard Monitoring Report............................................23
3. Routine BAT Perfbrmance Standard Monitoring Reports........................................... 24
4. DMT and BAT Performance Upset Reporrs................................................................24
5. Other Infbrmation......................................................................................................... 24
6. Groundwater Monitoring Well As-Built Reports......................................................... 24
7. White Mesa Seeps and Springs Monitoring Reports................................:................... 25
8. Chemicals Inventory Report......................................................................................... 26
9. Tailings Cell Wastewater Oualitlr Reports ................................................................... 26
I0. R.evised Hydrogeologic Report .................................................................................... 26
11. Annual Slimes Drain Recover.v- Head Reporl...............................................................26
G. Our op CouplreNce Srarus............................................................................................ 27
1 . Accelerated Monitoring Status ..................................................................................... 27
2. Violation of Permit Limits ........................................................................................... 27
3. Failure to Maintain DMT or BAT Recluired by Permit................................................27
4. Facility Out of Compliance Status ............................................................................... 28
H. Cor,tplreNcu ScHuouue Reeulneltex'rs. ........................................................"................ 28
a
1. On-site Chemicals In2. Intjltration and Contaminant Transport Modeling Work Plan and Report.................. 293. Plan for Evaluation of Deep Supply Well WW-2........................................................ 304. New Decontamination Pad........................................................................................... 3l5. Existing Decontamination Pad ..................................................................................... 32
PART rr. REPORTING REOUTREMENTS ........................................................................ 33A. RrpRsspNr,rrlvn Saupr.rruc.............................................................................................. 33B. ANar-yrrcal PnocnouRps................................................................................................ 3,3
E. CovrpuaNcp Scnsnur-rs .................................................................................................. 33F. Aoonrorat- MorlnoRNc ey rHE PsRN4rrrne.................................................................. 33C. Ruconns CoN1sNrs.........................................................."............................................... 33H. RnrENrrclN on'Rpconos.................................................................................................... 33L Norrce op NoNcoir,rplrauce RppoRrrNc.......................................................................... 34J. OrHnR NoNco:uplraNcu RnpoRrrNc................................................................................ 34K. INspncrrox RNp ENrny..................................................................................................... 34
PART III. COMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITIES................................................................ 35A. Dury ro CoMpLy.............................................................................................................. 35B. PeNRlrms ron VrcllerloNs or Penmrr Coron'roxs ........................................................ 35C. Nnso ro Helr on Rroucr Acrrvrry Nor a DsrpNsp...................................................... 35D. Dury ro Mnrcnre............................................................................................................ 35E. PRopsR OprnerroN aNo MarurpxeNce........................................................................... 35
PART IV. GENERAL REOUTREMENTS .......................................................................... 36A. Pr-aNNro CnaNcrs........................................................................................................... 36B. ANrrcrpn'rpo NoNcoupr-1axcs...........................................,............................................. 36
E. Dury ro PRovros lNpoRtvrarloN ................................................................,..................... 36F. OrHpn INn'onuarror......................................................................................................... 36G. SrcNerony Reeumpusxrs .............................................................................................. 36H. PexRr-rms n'oR FalsmcerroN or RBponrs ...................................................................... 37
J. Pnopsnry Rrcurs ............................................................................................................. 37K. SevsnaeLrry.................................................................................................................... 37L. TnaNsrsns ........................................................................................................................ 37M. Srarn Laws ...................................................................................................................... 38N. RsoppNen PnovrsroNs...................................................................................................... 38
List of Tables
Table 4. Feedstock Storage Area Coordinates ............................................................................. l0
Table 5. Appr:oved railings cell 4,{ Engineering Design and Specifications............................. I I
Table 6. Groundwater Monitoring Reporting ScheduIe............................................................... 23
o
Part I
Permi r No. UGW370004
PART I. SPECIFIC PERMIT CONDITIONS
A. GnouND WATER ClassmcRTIoN - 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:
l) N = Number of Saniples
2) Based on historic total dissolved solids (TDS) data provided by the Permittee for period between October, 1979 and December, 2007. This
data was obtained from the Permittee's background groundwater quality reports dated October 2007 and April 30, 2008.
3) Background concentrations of uranium in well MW-18 (55.1 pg/L) and thallium in MW-19 (2.1 ydL) exceed the GWQS, 30 pglL and 2.0
pg/L, respectively. Therefore these wells have been classified as Class III groundwater rather than Class II groundwater.
4) Wells MW-20 and MW-22 are not point of compliance monitoring wells, but instead are groundwater head monitoring wells as per Part I.8.2.
Average concentrations and standard deviations for wells MW-20 and MW-22 were calculated by DRC staff from data from the DUSA 2'd
and 3'd Quarters of 2008 Routine Groundwater Monitoring Reports.
5) Background concentration of manganese in well MW-25 (1,806 pgll) exceeds the GWQS, therefore well MW-25 has been classified as Class
III groundwater rather than Class II groundwater.
6) Well MW-26 was originally named TW4-15 and was installed as part of the chloroform contaminant investigation at the facility. Under this
Permit, MW-26 is defined as a Point of Compliance (POC) well for the tailings cells (see Part LE.1).
7) Background concentrations of uranium in well MW-27 Qa pgfi-) and selenium in MW-31 (7 t pglL) exceed the GWQS, therefore these wells
have been classified as Class III groundwater rather than Class II groundwater.
8) Well MW-32 was originally named TW4-17 and was installed as part of the chloroform contaminant investigation at the facility. Under this
Permit it is included as a POC well for the tailings cells in Part I.E.1.
B. BACKGRoUND WATER QUALITv - based on groundwater samples collected through June 2007 fbr
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
Table L Ground Water Classification
Class II Groundwater
Average TDS (mg/L)
DUSA Data
Class III Groundwater
Average TDS (mg/L)
DUSA Data
Well
ID N(1)
Average
Concentration(2)
Standard
Deviation(z)Well ID 19(t)
Average
Concentration(2)
Standard
Deviation(2)
MW-1 77 7,273 93 MW-2 77 3,050 252
MW-5 82 2.058 110 MW-3 78 5,211 263
MW-l1 7l 1.844 178 MW-I2 61 3,894 241
MW-30 10 1,745 81 MW-14 51 3.592 176
MW-15 47 3,857 243
MW-17 22 4,444 321
MW-18'18 2.605 297
MW-1g',',22 2,45'l 900
MW-20t",2 5,610 57
MW-22e)2 7.365 361
MW-3A 9 5,547 129
MW-23 10 3,443 244
MW-24 10 4,1t6 tt7
MW-25\,/1t 2,843 67
MW-26(",12 3.1 55 65
I'IW-27\')t0 1.019 28
MW-28 1l 3.677 8l
MW-29 8 4,380 21
MW-31(10 1.265 50
MW-32(o,12 3.669 247
Footnotes:
Part I
Permit No. UGW370004
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidance, and documented in the Permittee's
background groundwater quality reports dated October 2007 and April 30, 2008.
C. PsnunLrutrs - the Permittee shall comply with the following permit limits:
Ground Water Compliance Limits - contaminant concentrations measured in each monitoring
well shall not exceed the Ground Water Compli4nce Limits (GWCL) defined in Table 2,
below. Groundwater quality at the site must at all times meet all the applicable GWQS and
ad hoc GWQS defined in R317-6 even though this permit does not require monitoring for
each specific contaminant.
Tailings Cell Operations - only ll.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, antifreeze,
pesticides, or any other contaminant not defined as 11e.(2) material is prohibited.
1.
2.
3.
JU
x
o
o
6o-o
)
r)=
zL
L
c
N rqo
{o(
4
!
\)
R\)r{
N d ^i
hg €\
6 r +
r:aN x
c:
\c $
l-)
USq
Q
OO
!
a<
r
{o{
iJ
N
A
U
(J
O.
\)
^i
v?
N ^i
\)
N€d r
N
o
^;
ZL
L
>6i d N nN
nE(a e
O rlr C N On@
&!
V nN c v')N N
C
vl€N rd
N
$
.t=
AL
L
c
h N N r V,!1r
Xxq N €
n v')N N
r)
a
!@
n€
A
@
o
4a
>v
2:
L
B
\;cl oq N rN
r:
cr 6
\c !N d d+
r)r N r r q q r v.)r a N
€\o oO x5
0e
>uAL
N*r d 6q N f:
N t
$f:er ++
ri
N N d
$r
rc1
E
\r c'l
O .1 r nr c.!ra O
d n
n@ NR
@ rnN
cn
Joo
d
<=
aY
d N a?a \o !r
rx6 N 5€l,
4
nr N
!N It\
v)N N
ra€
€
d V,,q
>!2.o r d
r
t
v\a \o u)F N o r
€
N(t]
F
)nN
v]
d d O
V
q
(
6
o
€r
€
.J
*io
B
I
C)o
aq=
-2zu 6i 5
N hN €
c
F
\ar d \o
g n€cl
d
!'l
N
v?
N t,
nrc
6
$N
r\t
6i
c
E
r€d-
ZU
hd €iad d h €hE I r)F h u
t o n
N
d V v]
a.l h q
d 0
*
€
r*€N€$
tr
zU
JU
Bo
o x nN €\t 6€d x
n nN ^i t,
v')
@
@a:€
<t\f $
N
Nnr
cl
6=
zci
JU>o
rc.lO ^i
a\q*+
a N -i x d
vir !N 6i N
n@
N\o
:o(
o\a
a
rr:€o
di
*aEU
IUB
c.l nN
nN .1$
nN@ d t:N
]x N
r)N N$
€qr N tr cl o .l 11r nr q a
N
b
o
€
^6iN
6€
r\ovl
,
N
O $or
O O d o
r
O o6 r
O o
;
Q
{o(
v
e
z
tr
z
o
z
+o
z
o
F
C
EtGU
o
(.)O
oo
i.J a
oo
c
z
EoI
c z
ooq
I
a F
EiE!
E
€
a
N
sc
c o
4
o
oNtrO
v
fr.l
o
d
o
boF
oo
U
csL
o
G
o
o
U
o
o
o
a
o
oz
tr
7
o
o
o
oF
Ccd
f,
a
E
o!
tr
J
o
U
E
c
U
0
F
C
Lo
c-i
C)
-o
$
o
tro
do
.5
o
o
OIE
.L
r
{OtS
ES
S)
$
E
N N N\$
cl
r (\t
r)r
q$o\N E
€a N
NU{
Q
b(U
q
(l
NO(-{
+.;
U
U
0(r-o
qJ
8
^i
vl
N
v')N N h
{\)
I€
n\o
N
r\o oq
_C
zU
J;ra
ai d N ra\a VE v ulF *r r)a2 o rd
ul
F h V U
d €a V di
h
uQ
n N d N N
oa
BgzY
U m
d o q 6ia a rN \\o O d iaiNn
Nri N rd r .l o1 ulr v)r I d N d
x
€
t,€N 6F3
-
o\
NT
2,O
U N 6i €€X r
dNG c.l in*d nN N
rx
-{€
t
€d +\t
QCdr
zL
!N N q r*a !r€C ,o+
NtN
a\9t
ia6
€
tr l,i r d
x
\AENi
ZU
JUx
oo
C
alg N v'lN
a €
oq
rqN
r \o N
@ q
+ia 8oi F o h d Ev
vl€
$\€
x
€N
99
^i
@N
ogNH
. (.)
JU*rF q d n V U€g r
€-a V,V ,ln h
F laC)
!n n v]
N V
x N(€F.g\
d
!l=N-
.U
J(.)
t)
r nd €a
da
+
r
N N t.,a vlr 6i N
nN
v]N O
ine
h
€r t,ttv
\-
-(.)
JU>o
(v')
N €v]r N ,N $r
\o@
6i
nN ai F 6i
x
€
!A tr\c
FE
EL
JU
B
€a r)d €c o r)r N X
o
N
o9 vl
N
8
^i ^i a,
v]€
1\o
a
d
€x
o
*
,',
r O CCq
d \t
o
r r $r
C O v')q
6
\'
a!
Q
{O{
V)
L
ts
z
E
F
z
d
o
z+
=
z
EC
F
(d
E
O
o
U
EcL
o
c
.q
I(
(
F
F
=ECc o
oz
tr
oa
o
(n
E
E F
E:
N
oo
o
coo
o
aN
a
v
tr.l
o
N
o
a
oF
s
U
ooo
(J
ts
oo
Q
E
E
c
F
E
E
C
o
oz
Ed
E
oF
o
o
r'
o
o
o(
o
o
oG
F
(T'E
E
j
q
o
U
Jd
ah
E
U
']U
Bo
U)
J
c.)o
!(,)
6
B
oL<
Eot
oU
N
0)
-odF
,F,E u+.4NI gv,aE bA Ea . OvE€ )-9 q o
E E !=
o o -L -'a b=€.=o.o€-ii g?6aE> :>!>oil E E H& EE ^odra9.= E xE:ill, crr.l g E eE :g g H HE E;EEE5 m!i.ql9€ H a A;eu -o*=!: 3 3E; EO ;- 9MY ui g;R}E
6 : hir j
f * 6POET
$ gg Rg"li=S a! ;'EiE:c o lxre'- €
P Et€ !YpEaY 9.3: ; S.( g=jEg= sEEi>3': E.e :aEESE= a o ts,ia 0-r:E:E BE.;I=
,.E E: :' gE E K,:g *€ E8E.gBE; FE gAtEE
EEt€ €fiIEIgE gp= ] El=3>n
=€ $e" E: Y€>>;.=U'.P 6Q 96i"ii.E€T E OX E'iS2b<EE !iot=*:frs 8 !::>>ets*; SFYE$e
EEEE,ts:s=ii€H€E;EEi]6
IEag;E€EiiEiEpEIieF=>aar 6' d F Yt !i r < E{.rd:!he6}zO
tEAEEig!:EEEEYiEiqETe$-=E€sgFei<*€{EE;5ES?;#:-i .-;t*=,9 >€Ti ii
;EE?#E;5=e&s?E!! e iei:==
;EPEq{iE=83EEE'eE9A-zZoE+:Pi"tE3"ib=;:EEdsH:*ge^b99(9=Y5'o3t€sffi IEI:€i> XE = tr-- o.: 5 cO5:E;O EE=?ErAc2;>Oa<YqEr:;.s97?+E!
EiTE"EEt!=EE
?€ = EE;**+9 E
E Fe l; E*:=: sdEEE€ES!<g>; I I i: Hi:S-YrbEe€ee.c:;r3.E> V.=.==m!
z???_?sseiESEoo()o';-, i,&,(] I8I SErJ>c4o::.<sEEE tYY=r@fil Essca 9lan=26l ><<<<u(.](J =a(xotOl ^^aIIl -Notn\Or€
o
Part I
Permit No. UGW370OO4
D. DrscHaRGE MrNrMzATroN AND BEST Avert-ler-e TscsNor-ocy STANDARDS - the tailings
disposal facility must be built, operated, and maintained according to the following Discharge
Minimization Technology (DMT) and Best Available Technology (BAT) standards:
1. DMT Design Standards for Existing Tailings Cells 1, 2, and3 - shall be based on existing
construction as described by design and construction information provided by the Permittee,
as summari zed rn Table 3 below for Tailings Cells 1 , 2, and 3:
l) D'Appolonia Consulting Engineers, Inc., June, 1979, "Engineers Report Tailings Management System White Mesa Uranium Project
Blanding, Utah Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. Denver, Colorado", unpublished consultants repon, approximately 50 pp., 2 figures, 16 sheets, 2
appendices.
2) D'Appolonia Consulting Engineers, Inc., February, 1982, "Construction Report Initial Phase - Tailings Management System White Mesa
Uranium Project Blanding, Utah Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. Denver, Colorado', unpublished consultants report, approximately 7 pp., 6 tables,
l3 figures, 4 appendices.
3) D'Appolonia Consulting Engineers, Inc., May, 1981, "Engineer's Report Second Phase Design - Cell 3 Tailings Management System White
Mesa Uranium Project Blanding, Utah Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. Denver, Colorado", unpublished consultants report, approximately 20 pp., 1
figure, 5 sheets, and 3 appendices.
4) Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., March, 1983, "Construction Report Second Phase Tailings Management System White Mesa Uranium Project
Energy Fuels Nuclear, lnc.", unpublished company report, 18 pp., 3 tables, 4 figures, 5 appendices.
a) Tailings Cell 1 - consisting of the following major design elements:
1) Cross-valley Dike and East Dike - constructed on the south side of the pond of native
granular materials with a 3:l slope, a 20-foot crest width, and a crest elevation of
about 5,620 ft above mean sea level (amsl). A dike of similar design was constructed
on the east margin of the pond, which forms a continuous earthen structure with the
south dike. The remaining interior slopes are cut-slopes at 3:1 grade.
2) Liner System - including a single 30 mil PVC flexible membrane liner (FML)
consffucted of solvent welded seams on a prepared sub-base. Top elevation of the
FML liner was 5,618.5 ft amsl on both the south dike and the north cut-slope. A
protective soil cover layer was constructed immediately over the FML with a
thickness of 12-inches on the cell floor and 18-inches on the interior sideslope.
3) Crushed Sandstone Underlay - immediately below the FML a nominal6-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.
6
able DMT neerins Desisn and trcations
Tailings
Cell
Report
Tvoe Eneineerins Reoort Desisn Fieures
Construction
Specifications
Cell 1 Design June,
Consu
979 D'Appolonia
ting Engineers, Inc (r)
Appendix A, Sheets 2,4,8,
9, t2-15
Appendix B
Cell2 Design June,
Consu
979 D'Appolonia
ting Engineers, Inc (l)Appendix A, Sheets 2,4,1-
10, 12-15
Appendix B
As-Built February, 1982 D'Appolonia
Consulting Engineers. Inc (2)
Figures 1,2, and 11 N/A
Cell3 Design May, 1981 D'Appolonra
Consultine Engineers. Inc (3)
Sheets 2-5 Appendix B
As-Built March, 1983 Energy Fuels
Nuclear, Inc. (a)
Figures l4 N/A
Footnotes:
I
Part I
Permi
b)
t No. UGW3700O4
Tailings Cell2 - which consists of the following major design elements:
t) 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. TopelevationoftheFMLlinerinCell2is5,615.0ftand5,613.5ftamslon
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 1S-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 nominal6-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 ofthe cross-valley dike.
4) Slimes Drain Collection System immediately above the FML a nominal 12-inch thick
protective blanket layer was constructed of native silty-sandy soil. On top of this
protective blanket, a network of 1.S-inch PVC perforated pipe laterals was installed
on a grid spacing interval of about 5O-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 the24-inch diameter HDPE access pipe.
Tailings Cell 3 - consisting of the following major design elements:
1) Cross-valley Dike - constructed at the south margin of Cell 3 of native granular
materials with a 3:1 slope, a 20-foot crest width, and a crest elevation of 5,610 ft
amsl. The east and west interior slopes consist of cut-slopes with a 3:l grade. The
Cell2 south dike forms the north margin of Cell 3, with a crest elevation of 5,615 ft
amsl.
2) Liner System - includes a single 30 mil PVC FML liner constructed of solvent
welded seams on a prepared sub-base, and overlain by a slimes drain collection
system. Top elevation of the FML liner in Cell 3 is 5,613.5 ft and 5,608.5 ft amsl on
the north and south dikes, respectively. Said Cell 3 FML liner is independent of all
other disposal cell FML liners.
3) Crushed Sandstone Underlay - immediately below the FML a nominal 6-inch thick
layer of crushed sandstone was prepared and rolled smooth as a FML sub-base layer.
Beneath this underlay, native sandstone and other foundation materials were graded
c)
2.
Part I
Permit No. UGW370004
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
consffucted of native sands from on-site excavated soils (707o) and dewatered and
cyclone separated tailings sands from the mill (30Vo). 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
18-inch thick berm of native granular filter media. At cell closure, leachate head
inside the pipe network will be removed via a submersible pump installed inside the
12-inch diameter inclined access pipe.
Existing Tailings Cell Construction Authorrzed - tailings disposal in existing Tailings Cells
l, 2, and 3 is authorized by this Permit as defined in Table 3 and Part LD.l, above.
Authorized operation and maximum disposal capacity in each of the existing tailings cells
shall not exceed the levels authorized by the License. Under no circumstances shall the
freeboard be less than three feet, as measured from the top of the FML. Any modification by
the Permittee to any approved engineering design parameter at these existing tailings cells
shall require prior Executive Secretary approval, modification of this Permit, and issuance of
a construction permit.
Existing Facility DMT Perfo(nance Standards - the Permittee shall operate and maintain
certain mill site facilities and the existing tailings disposal cells to minimize the potential for
wastewater release to groundwater and the environment, including, but not limited to the
following additional DMT compliance measures:
a) DMT Monitoring Wells at Tailings Cell 1 - at all times the Permittee shall operate and
maintain Tailings Cell 1 to prevent groundwater quality conditions in any nearby
monitoring well from exceeding any Ground Water Compliance Limit established in
Table 2 of this Permit.
b) Tailings Cells 2 and 3 - including the following performance criteria:
1) Slimes Drain Maximum Allowable Head - the Permittee shall at all times maintain
the average wastewater recovery head in the slimes drain access pipe to be as low as
reasonably achievable (ALARA) in each tailings disposal cell, in accordance with the
currently approved DMT Monitoring Plan.
2) Monthly Slimes Drain Recovery Test - the Permittee shall conduct a monthly slimes
drain recovery test at each tailings cell slimes drain that meets the following
minimum requirements:
i. Includes a duration of at leastg0-hours, as measured fro]rn the time that pumping
ceases, and
ii. Achieves a stable water level at the end of the test, as measured by three
8
aJ.
Part I
Permit No. UGW370004
consecutive hourly water level depth measurements, with no change in water
level, as measured to the nearest 0.01 foot.
3) Annual Slimes Drain Compliance - shall be achieved when the average annual
wastewater recovery elevation in the slimes drain access pipe, as determined pursuant
to the currently approved DMT Monitoring Plan, meets the conditions in Equation l,
below:
Equation l:
lIEy+ fEy-r+lEy-z 1/ [Nr+ Ny-r * Ny-zJ < [IEv-r +lBy-z+ lEy-r ] / [ Ny-r + Ny-z +Ny-r1
Where:
IE, = Sum of all monthly slimes drain tailings fluid elevation measurements that meet the test
performancestandardsfoundinPartl.D.3(bX2),duringthecalendaryearofinterest. Hereafter,these
water level measurements are referred to as slimes drain recovery elevations (SDRE). Pursuant to the
currently approved DMT Monitoring Plan, these recovery tests are to be conducted monthly and the
SDRE values reported in units of feet above mean sea level (amsl).
IEy-r = Sum of all SDRE measurements made in the year previous to the calendar year of
interest.
LEy-z = Sum of all SDRE measurements made in the second year previous to the calendar year of
interest.
IEv-: = Sum of all SDRE measurements made in the third year previous to the calendar year of
interest.
Ny = Total number of SDRE tests that meet the test performance standards found in Part
I.D.3(bX2), conducted during the calendar year of interest.
Ny-r = Total number of SDRE tests that meet the test performance standards found in Part
LD.3(b)(2), conducted in the year previous to the calendar year of interest.
Ny-z = Total number of SDRE tests that meet the test performance standards found in Part
I.D.3(b)(2), conducted in the second year previous to the calendar year of interest.
Ny-: = Total number of SDRE tests that meet the test performance standards found in Part
I.D.3(b)(2), conducted in the third year previous to the calendar year ofinterest.
Prior to January 1,2013, the following values for E and N values in Equation 1 shall
be based on SDRE data from the following calendar years.
Report for
Calendar
Year
Source of Data By Calendar Year for Equation I Variables (rieht side)
E"-r E,.t E"-.N N N.-.
2010 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009
20tt 2010 2009 2009 2010 2009 2009
2012 2011 2010 2009 2011 2010 2009
Failure to satisfy conditions in Equation 1 shall constitute DMT failure and non-
compliance with this Permit. For Cell 3, this requirement shall apply after initiation of
de-watering operations.
c) Maximum Tailings Waste Solids Elevation - upon closure of any tailings cell, the
Permittee shall ensure that the maximum elevation of the tailings waste solids does not
a
Part I
Permi t No. UGW370004
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.
Roberts Pond - the Permittee shall operate this wastewater pond so as to provide a
minimum Z-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 wastewater
elevation exceeds this maximum level, the Permittee shall remove the excess wastewater
and place it into containment in Tailings Cell 1 within 72-hours of discovery. At the
time of mill site closure, the Permittee shall reclaim and decommission the Roberts Pond
in compliance with a final Reclamation Plan approved under the License (hereafter
Reclamation Plan).
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.l1. At the time of mill site closure, the
Permittee shall reclaim and decommission the Feedstock Storage Area in compliance
with an approved Reclamation Plan.
Table 4. Feeds k Sto Area Coordinates (l)toc
Corner Northins (ft)Eastins (ft)
Northeast 323.s95 2.580.925
Southeast 322,140 2,580,920
Southwest 322,140 2.580.420
West 1 322.8t5 2,580,410
West 2 323,040 2,580,085
West 3 323,1,20 2,580,085
West 4 323.3t5 2.580,285
West 5 323,4t5 2,579,990
Northwest 323.600 2.579.990
Foomote:
l) Approximate State Plane Coordinates beginning from the extreme northeast comer and progressing clockwise around
the feedstock area (from 6/2201 DUSA Response, Attachment K, Site Topographic Map, Revised June, 2001.)
g) Mill Site Chemical Reagent Storage - for all chemical reagents stored at existing storage
facilities and held for use in the milling process, the Permittee shall provide secondary
containment to capture and contain all volumes of reagent(s) that might be released at
any individual storage area. Response to spills, cleanup thereof, and required reporting
shall comply with the provisions of the approved Emergency Response Plan as found in
the currently approved Stormwater Best Management Practices Plan. For any new
construction of reagent storage facilities, said secondary containment and conffol shall
prevent any contact of the spilled or otherwise released reagent or product with the
ground surface.
4. Best Available Technology Requirements for New Construction - any construction,
modification, or operation of new waste or wastewater disposal, treatment, or storage
facilities shall require submittal of engineering design plans and specifications, and prior
e)
10
o
Part I
Permi t No. UGW370004
Executive Secretary review and approval. All engineering plans or specifications submitted
shall demonstrate compliance with all Best Available Technology (BAT) requirements
stipulated by the Utah Ground Water Quality Protection Regulations (UAC R3l7-6). Upon
Executive Secretary approval this Permit may be re-opened and modified to include any
necessary requirements.
5. BAT Design Standards for Tailings Cell 4,A. - the BAT design standard for Tailings Cell 44
shall be defined by and construction conform to the requirements of the June 25,2007
Executive Secretary design approval letter for the relining of former existing Tailings Cell
No. 44, and as summarized by the engineering drawings, specifications, and description in
Table 5, below:
Table 5
Footnotes:
l) As qualified by conditions found in May 2,2007 Division ofRadiation Connol letter.2) As clarified by February 8, 2007 Division ofRadiation Connol Round 6 Inrerrogatory.
Tailings Cell 4,{ Design and Construction - approved by the Executive Secretary will consist
of the following major elements:
11
A ved'I'arlrngs Cell 4A neering Design and Specifications
Engineering Drawings
Name Date Revision
No.
Title
Sheet 1 of7 June- 2007 Title Sheet
Sheet 2 of 7 June 15,2007 Rev. I 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
Sheet5 of7 June 15,2007 Rev. 1 Lining System Details I
Sheet 6 of 7 June 5.2007 Rev. I Linine System Details II
Sheet 7 of 7 June 15,2007 Rev. I Lining System Details III
Fisure I Ausust.2008 Spillway Splash Pad Anchor
Engineering Specifications
Date Document Title Prepared by
Jwe,2007 Revised Technical Specifications for the
Construction of Cell 4,A. Linins Svstem
Geosyntec Consultants
June,2007 Revised Construction Quality Assurance Plan
for the Construction of Cell 4,A. Linins Svstem
Geosyntec Consultants
March 27,2007 Revised Geosynthetic Clay Liner Hydration
Demonstration Work Plan (r)Geosyntec Consultants
November 27,2006 Cell Seismic Study (2)MFG Consulting
Scientists and Ensineers
October 6,2006 Calculation of Action Leakage Rate Through
the Leakage Detection System Underlying a
Geomembrane Liner
Geosyntec Consultants
June22,2006 Slope Stability Analysis Cell4,A. - Interim
Conditions
Geosyntec Consultants
June23.2006 Settlement Evaluation of Berms (')Geosyntec Consultants
Ausust 22,2006 Pipe Strensth Calculations Geosyntec Consultants
September 27,2007 DMC Cell44. - GCL Hydration Geosyntec Consultants
a
Part I
Permi
a)
t No. UGW370004
Dikes - consisting of existing earthen embankments of compacted soil, constructed by the
Permittee between 1989-1990, 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 1V. The west dike has an interior slope of 2H to 1V. Width of these
dikes varies, each has a minimum crest width of at least l5 feet to support an access road.
Base width also varies from 89-feet on the east dike (with no exterior embankment), to
Zll-feet at the west dike.
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 907o. Floor of Cell4A has an average slope
of lVo that grades from the northeast to the southwest corners.
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).
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 ofthe dikes on all
four sides. The primary FML will be in direct physical contact with the tailings
material over most of the Cell 4,A' 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 fabric that extends
acrogs the entire area under the primary FML in Cell 4,A', and drains to a leak
detection sump in the southwest corner. Access to the leak detection sump is via an
1S-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 l0 feet by 10 feet
by 2 feet deep. In turn, the gravel filter layer will be enclosed in an envelope of
geotextile fabric. The purpose of both the gravel and geotextile fabric is to serve as a
filter.
Secondary FML - consisting of an impermeable 60-mil HDPE membrane found
immediately below the leak detection geonet. Said FML also extends across the
entire Cell 4A floor, up the inside side-slopes and is also anchored in a trench at the
top of all four dikes.
Geosynthetic Clay L.rner - consisting of a manufactured geosynthetic clayliner (GCL)
composed of O.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
50Vo by weight. This item is a revised requirement per DRC letter to DUSA dated
September 28,2007.
b)
c)
d)
2)
3)
4)
e) Slimes Drain Collection System
perforated collection pipes both
follows:
- including a two-part system of strip drains and
installed immediately above the primary FML, as
12
Part I
Permit No. UGW370004
Horizontal Strip Drain System - is installed in a herringbone pattern across the floor
of Cell 4,{ 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.
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
Cell4,{ where it joins the slimes drain access pipe.
Slimes Drain Access Pipe - consisting of an 1S-inch ID Schedule 40 PVC pipe placed
down the inside slope of Cell 4A at the southwest comer, 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 l8-inch
pipe and used to remove tailings wastewaters for purposes of de-watering the tailings
cell.
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 4A, from the top of the dike,
under the inlet pipe, and down the inside slope to a point 5-feet beyond the toe of the
slope.
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 44. This
spillway will be limited to a 6-inch reinforced concrete slab set directly over the primary
FML in a 4-foot deep trapezoidal channel. No other spillway or overflow structure will
be constructed at Cell 4A. All stormwater runoff and tailings wastewaters not retained in
Cells 2 and 3, will be managed and contained in Cell 44, including the Probable
Maximum Precipitation and flood event.
6. BAT Performance Standards for Tailings Cell 44. - the Permittee shall operate and maintain
Tailings Cell 4,{ so as to prevent release of wastewater to groundwater and the environment
in accordance with the currently approved Cell 4,A' BAT Monitoring Operations and
Maintenance Plan. The plan's performance standards include the following:
l)
2)
3)
0
s)
t3
a
Part I
Permit No. UGW370004
a) Leak Detection System (LDS) Maximum Allowable Daily Head - the fluid head in the
LDS shall not exceed I 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 ffansducer. 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.
Slimes Drain Monthly and Annual Average Recovery Head Criteria - after the Permittee
initiates pumping conditions in the slimes drain layer in Cell 4,{, 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), and2) 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.
Maximum Weekly Wastewater Level - under no circumstance shall the freeboard be less
then 3-feet in Cell 4,{, as measured from the top of the upper FML.
Definition of l la (2) Waste - for purposes of this Permit, lle.(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 I 1e.(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.
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 :
Minimize infiltration of precipitation or other surface water into the tailings, including,
but not limited to the radon barrier,
Prevent the accumulation of leachate head within the tailings waste layer that could rise
above or over-top the maximum FML liner elevation internal to any disposal cell, i.e.
create a "bathtub" effect, and
Ensure that groundwater quality at the compliance monitoring wells does not exceed the
Ground Water Quality Standards or Ground Water Compliance Limits specified in Part
I.C.1 and Table 2 of this Permit.
9. Facility Reclamation Requirements - upon commencement of decommissioning, the
Permittee shall reclaim the mill site and all related facilities, stabilize the tailings cells, and
construct a cover system over the tailings cells in compliance with all engineering design and
specifications in an approved Reclamation Plan. The Executive Secretary reserves the right
to require modifications of the Reclamation Plan for purposes of compliance with the Utah
Ground Water Quality Protection Regulations, including but not limited to containment and
control of contaminants, or discharges, or potential discharges to Waters of the State.
10. Stormwater Management and Spill Control Requirements - the Permittee will manage all
t4
c)
d)
7.
8.
a)
b)
c)
Part I
Permit No. UGW370004
contact and non-contact stormwater and control contaminant spills at the facility in
accordance with the currently approved Stormwater Best Management Practices Plan. Said
plan includes the following minimum provisions:
a) Protect groundwater quality or other waters of the state by design, construction, and/or
active operational measures that meet the requirements of the Ground Water Quality
Protection Regulations found in UAC R317-6-6.3(G) and R317-6-6.4(C),
Prevent, control and contain spills of stored reagents or other chemicals at the mill site,
Cleanup spills of stored reagents or other chemicals at the mill site immediately upon
discovery, and
d) Report reagent spills or other releases at the mill site to the Executive Secretary
accordance with UAC 19-5-114.
Reconstruction of stormwater management and/or chemical reagent storage facilities,
existing at the time of original Permit issuance, may be required by the Executive Secretary
after occurrence of a major spill or catastrophic failure, pursuant to Part IV.N.3 of this
Permit.
I 1. BAT Requirements for Feedstock Material Stored Outside the Feedstock Storage Area - the
Permittee shall store and manage feedstock materials outside the ore storage pad in
accordance with the following minimum performance requirements:
a) Feedstock materials will be stored at all times in water-tight containers, and
b) Aisle ways will be provided at all times to allow visual inspection of each and every
feedstock container, or
Each and every feedstock container will be placed inside a water-tight overpack prior to
storage, or
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, consffucted, and operated in accordance with engineering
plans and specifications approved in advance by the Executive Secretary. All such
engineering plans or specifications submitted shall demonsffate compliance with Part
I.D.4, and
3) A stora ge area that provides containment berms to control stormwater run-on and
run-off, and
Stormwater drainage works approved in advance by the Executive Secretary, or
Other storage facilities and means approved in advance by the Executive Secretary.
E. GnouNo WATER CoMrLTANCE AND TecHNor-ocy PERFoRMANCE MoNIToRING - beginning with
the effective date and lasting through the term of this Permit or as stated in an approved closure
plan, the Permittee shall sample groundwater monitoring wells, tailing cell wastewaters, seeps
and springs, monitor groundwater levels, monitor water levels of process solutions, and monitor
and keep records of the operation of the facility, as follows:
b)
c)
c)
d)
4)
s)
15
o
Part I
Permi t No. UGW370004
1. Routine Groundwater Compliance Monitoring - the Permittee shall monitor upgradient,
lateral gradient, and downgradient groundwater monitoring wells completed in the shallow
aquifer in the vicinity of all potential discharge sources that could affect local groundwater
conditions at the facility, as follows:
a) Ground Water Monitoring Quality Assurance Plan - all groundwater monitoring and
analysis perforrned under this Permit shall be conducted in accordance with a Quality
Assurance Plan (QAP) currently approved by the Executive Secretary. Any non-
conformance with QAP requirements in a given quarterly groundwater monitoring period
will be corrected and reported to the Executive Secretary on or before submittal of the
next quarterly groundwater monitoring report pursuant to Part LF.1.
b) Quarterly Monitoring - the Permittee shall monitor on a quarterly basis all monitoring
wells listed in Table 2 of this Permit where local groundwater average linear velocity has
been found by the Executive Secretary to be equal to or greater than 10 feet/year. For
purposes of this Permit, quarterly monitoring is required at the following wells:
1) UpgradientWells: none
2) Lateral or Downgradient Wells: MW-ll, MW-14, MlAe-, MW-25, MW-26
(formerly TW4-15), MW-30, and MW-31.
c) Semi-annual Monitoring - the Permittee shall monitor on a semi-annual basis all
monitoring wells listed in Table 2 of this Permit where local groundwater average linear
velocity has been found by the Executive Secretary to be less than 10 feet/year. For
purposes of this Permit, semi-annual monitoring is required at the following wells:
1) UpgradientWells: MW-1, MW-18, MW-19, and MW-27.
2) Lateral or DowngradientWells: MW-2, MW-3, MW-3A, MW-5, MW-12, MW-15,
MW-17, MW-23, MW-24. MW-28, MW-29, and MW-32 (formerly TW4-I7).
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:
l) Depth to Groundwater Measurements - shall always be made to the nearest 0.01 foot.
2) MinimumDetection 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
t6
o
Part I
Permi
2.
t No. UGW370004
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 than2UVo of the
reported activity concentration. An error term may be greater than 20Vo 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: Monitoring Wells MW-20 andMW-22 - Starting with the l't
Quarter 2008 groundwater event the Permittee shall implement a quarterly groundwater
sampling program. Said sampling shall comply with the following Permit requirements:
a) Routine groundwater compliance monitoring requirements of Part I.E.1.
b) Well monitoring procedure requirements of Part I.E.5.
After completion of eight consecutive quarters of groundwater sampling and analysis of
MW-20 and MW-22, the Permittee shall submit a Background Report that will include:
1) Data preparation and statistical analysis of groundwater quality data, including
treatment of non-detectable values, statistical methods. These statistics shall be
calculated using the Decision Tree/Flowchart used for the previous Background
Reports that was conditionally approved by the DRC on August 24,2007.
2) Aquifer test results to determine local hydraulic conductivity and other aquifer
properties at wells MW-20 andMW-22
3) Average linear groundwater velocity calculated for MW-20 andMW-22, based on
well specific hydraulic conductivity, hydraulic gradient, and effective aquifer
porosity.
The said report shall be submitted by March 1,2010. After review of this report the
Executive Secretary will evaluate if wells MW-20 and MW-22 should be added as POC
wells, and adjust the sampling frequency in accordance with criteria found in Part I.E. 1(b) or
(c). If it is determined that wells MW-20 andMW-22 should be added as POC wells, the
Executive Secretary will re-open this Permit and establish Groundwater Compliance Limits
in Table 2 for wells MW-20 andMW-22.
Groundwater Head Monitoring - on a quarterly basis and at the same frequency as
groundwater monitoring required by Part I.E.l, the Permittee shall measure depth to
groundwater in the following wells and/or piezometers:
a) Point of Compliance Wells - identified in Table 2 and Part I.E.1 of this Permit.
b) Piezometers - P-l,P-2, P-3, P-4, P-5.
c) Existing Monitoring Wells - MW-20 andMW-22.
d) Contaminant Investigation Wells - any well required by the Executive Secretary as a part
of a contaminant investigation or groundwater corrective action.
e) Any other wells or piezometers required by the Executive Secretary.
4. Groundwater Monitoring Well Design and Construction Criteria - all new groundwater
t7
aJ.
o
Part I
Permi
5.
t No. UGW370004
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 otherpotential
origin of groundwater pollution.
b) Screened and completed in the shallow aquifer.
c) Designed and constructed in compliance with UAC R317-6-6.3(I)(6), including the EPA
RCRA Ground Water Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance Document, 1986,
oswER-9950.1.
d) Aquifer tested to determine local hydraulic properties, including but not limited to
hydraulic conductivity.
Monitoring Procedures for Wells - beginning with the date of Permit issuance, all monitoring
shall be conducted by the Permittee in conformance with the following procedures:
a) Sampling - grab samples shall be taken of the groundwater, only after adequate removal
or purging of standing water within the well casing has been performed.
b) Sampling Plan - all sampling shall be conducted to ensure collection of representative
samples, and reliability and validity of groundwater monitoring data.
c) Laboratory Approval - all analyses shall be performed by a laboratory certified by the
State of Utah to perform the tests required.
d) Damage to Monitoring Wells - if any monitor well is damaged or is otherwise rendered
inadequate for its intended purpose, the Permittee shall notify the Executive Secretary in
writing within five calendar days of discovery.
e) Field Monitoring Equipment Calibration and Records - immediately prior to each
monitoring event, the Permittee shall calibrate all field monitoring equipment in
accordance with the respective manufacturer's procedures and guidelines. The Permittee
shall make and preserve on-site written records of such equipment calibration in
accordance with Part tr.G and H of this Permit. Said records shall identify the
manufacturer's and model number of each piece of field equipment used and calibration.
White Mesa Seeps and Springs Monitoring - the Permittee shall conduct annual monitoring
of all seeps and springs identified in the currently approved Sampling Plan for Seeps and
Springs in the Vicinity of the White Mesa Uranium Mill. Said monitoring shall include, but
is not limited to:
a) Field Measurements - including: pH, temperature, and specific conductivity,
b) Water Quality Sampling and Analysis - the Permittee shall collect grab samples and
perform laboratory analysis of all water quality parameters identified in Table 2 of this
Permit, and
c) Certified Laboratory Analysis - all laboratory analysis will be conducted by a Utah
certified laboratory.
d) Analytical Methods - all laboratory analysis shall be conducted using analytical methods
listed in the currently approved QAP pursuant to Part I.E.l of this Permit.
e) Minimum Detection Limits - all seeps or springs water quality analyses reported shall
18
6.
o
Part I
Permit No. UGW370004
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, l mg[L, and I mg/L,
respectively
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 LE.l 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 15 calendar days before any fieldwork or water quality sample
collection, the Permittee shall provide written notice to allow the Executive Secretary to
observe or split sample any or all seeps or springs.
7. DMT Performance Standards Monitoring - the Permittee shall perform technology
performance monitoring in accordance with the currently approved DMT Monitoring Plan to
determine if DMT is effective in minimizing and controlling the release of contaminants
pursuant to the provisions of Parts LD.1 and I.D.3 of this Permit, including, but not limited to
the following activities:
Weekly Tailings Wastewater Pool Elevation Monitoring: Cells I and 3 - the Permittee
shall monitor and record weekly the elevation of wastewater in Tailings Cells 1 and 3 to
ensure compliance with the maximum wastewater elevation criteria mandated by
Condition 10.3 of the License. Said measurements shall be made from a wastewater
level gauge or elevation survey to the nearest 0.01 foot.
Monthly Slimes Drain Water Level Monitoring: Cells 2 and 3 - the Permittee shall
monitor and record monthly the depth to wastewater in the slimes drain access pipes as
described in Part I.D.3 of this Permit and the currently approved DMT Monitoring Plan
at Tailings Cells 2 and 3 to determine the recovery head. For purposes of said
monitoring, the Permittee shall at each tailings cell:
l) Perform at least 12 separate slimes drain recovery tests at each disposal
calendar year that meet the requirements of Part I.D.3,
2) Designate, operate, maintain, and preserve one water level measuring point at the
centerline of the slimes drain access pipe that has been surveyed and certified by a
Utah licensed engineer or land surveyor,
s)
a)
b)
in each
t9
Part I
Permit No. UGW370004
3) Make all slimes drain recovery head test (depth to fluid) measurements from the
same designated water level measuring point, and
4) Record and report all fluid depth measurements to the nearest 0.01 foot.
5) For Cell 3 these requirements shall apply upon initiation of tailings de-watering
operations.
Weekly Wastewater kvel Monitoring: Roberts Pond - the Permittee shall monitor and
record weekly wastewater levels at the Roberts Pond to determine compliance with the
DMT operations standards in Part I.D.3. Said measurements shall be made in accordance
to the currently approved DMT Monitoring Plan.
Weekly Feedstock Storage Area Inspection - the Permittee shall conduct weekly
inspectionsof allfeedstockstorageto: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.l 1.
e) Feedstock Material Stored Outside the Feedstock Storage Area lnspections
1) Weekly Inspection - the Permittee will conduct weekly inspections to verify that each
feed material container complies with the requirements of Part I'D.1 1'
2) Hardened Surface Storage Area - in the event the Permittee constructs a hardened
surface storage area for feed materials, pursuant to Part I.D.l1, prior Executive
Secretary approval will be secured for the following:
Engineering Design and Specifications - in accordance with the requirements of
Part I.D.4, and
Operation and Maintenance Plan.
0 Inspections of Tailing Cell and Pond Liner Systems - the Permittee shall inspect the liner
system at Tailing Cells t, 2, and 3 on a daily basis pursuant to the requirements of
Sections 2.1 and2.2 of the currently approved DMT Monitoring Plan. The Permittee
shall conduct visual inspections at the Roberts Pond on a weekly basis. lF*diserepa*ey
In the evenlthat any liner det-ect gr damage is identified during a liner system inspection,
the Permittee shall immediately implement the currently approved Liner Maintenance
Provisions.
8. Cell 44 BAT Performance Standards Monitoring - in accordance with the currently approved
Cell44 BAT Monitoring Operations and Maintenance Plan, the Permittee shall immediately
implement all monitoring and recordkeeping requirements therein. The Cell 4A BAT
monitoring includes the following:
a) Weekly Leak Detection System (LDS) Monitoring - including:
1) Leak Detection System Pumping and Monitoring Equipment - the Permittee shall
provide continuous operation of the leak detection system pumping and monitoring
equipment, including, but not limited to, the submersible pump, pump controller,
head monitoring, and flow meter equipment approved by the Executive Secretary.
Failure of any pumping or monitoring equipment not repaired and made fully
operational within 24-hours of discovery shall constitute failure of BAT and a
c)
d)
20
a
Part I
Permi t No. UGW370004
violation of this Permit.
2) Maximum Allowable Head - the Permittee shall measure the fluid head above the
lowest point on the secondary flexible membrane by the use of procedures and
equipment approved by the Executive Secretary. Under no circumstance shall fluid
head in the leak detection system sump exceed a 1-foot level above the lowest point
in the lower flexible membrane liner on the cell floor. For purposes of compliance
monitoring this l-foot distance shall equate to2.28 feet above the leak detection
system transducer.
3) Maximum Allowable Daily LDS Flow Rates - the Permittee shall measure the
volume of all fluids pumped from the LDS. Under no circumstances shall the
average daily LDS flow volume exceed 24,160 gallons/day.
4) 3-foot Minimum Vertical Freeboard Criteria - the Permittee shall operate and
maintain wastewater levels to provide a 3-foot Minimum of vertical freeboard in
Tailings Cell4,A. Said measurements shall be made to the nearest 0.1 foot.
b) Slimes Drain Recovery Head Monitoring - immediately after the Permittee initiates
pumping conditions in the Tailings Cell 4A slimes drain system, monthly recovery head
tests and fluid level measurements will be made in accordance with the requirements of
Parts I.D.3 and I.E.7(b) of this Permit and any plan approved by the Executive Secretary.
9. On-site Chemicals Inventory - the Permittee shall monitor and maintain a current inventory
of all chemicals used at the facility at rates equal to or greater than 100 kg/yr. Said inventory
shall be maintained on-site, and shall include, but is not limited to:
a. Identification of chemicals used in the milling process and the on-site laboratory, and
b. Determination of volume and mass of each raw chemical currently held in storage at the
facility.
10. Tailings Cell Wastewater Quality Monitoring - on an annual basis, the Permittee shall collect
wastewater quality samples from each wastewater source at each tailings cell at the facility,
including, but not limited to:
a. +hre+Qnq surface impounded wastewater locations atSagbslTailings Cells 1, 3, and
4A,
b. One slimes drain wastewater access pipe at each of Tailings Cells 2,3, and 44. For
Cells 3 and 4,{, this requirement shall apply immediately after initiation of de-watering
operations at these cells, and
&-One leak detection wastewater access pipe at Tailings Cell 44.
c.
d. All such sampling shall be conducted in August of each calendar year in compliance with
the currently approved White Mesa Uranium Mill Tailing and Slimes Drain Sampling
Program. said annual monitoring shall include, but is not rimited to:
a'l ) Field Measurements - including: pH, temperature, and specific conductivity,
+.2) Water Quality Sampling and Analysis - the Permittee shall collect grab samples
and perform laboratory analysis of all:
21
a
Part I
Permi r No. UGW370004
!)i-Water quality parameters identified in Table 2 of this Permit, and
?)ii. Semi-volatile compounds identified in EPA Method 8270D.
b,3) Certified Laboratory Analysis - all laboratory analysis will be conducted by a
Utah certified laboratory.
e4) Analytical Methods - all laboratory analysis shall be conducted using analytical
methods listed in the currently approved QAP pursuant to Part LE.1 of this Permit.
*5) Minimum Detection Limits - all water quality analyses reported shall have a
minimum detection limit or reporting limit that is less than or equal to the respective:
*)i. Ground Water Quality Standards concenffations defined in Table 2 of this Permit,
?)ii. For TDS, Sulfate, and Chloride, the Minimum Detection Limit for those
constituents for Tailing Cell wastewater monitoring will be as follows: 1,000
m/L,1,000 mg/L, and 1 mglL, respectively, and
$iii. Lower limits of quantitation for groundwater for semi-volatile organic
compounds listed in Table 2 of EPA Method 8270D, Revision 4, dated February,
2007.
f6)Quality Control Samples - the Permittee will conduct quality control (QC) sampling
and analysis as a part of all tailings wastewater sampling, in accordance with the
requirements of Section 4.3 of the currently approved QAP; pursuant to Part I.E.l of
this Permit. Said QC samples shall include, but are not limited to: trip blanks,
duplicate samples, and equipment rinse blanks.
f7) Prior Notification - at least 30 calendar days before any fiel**erkerwater quality
sample collection, the Permittee shall provide written notice to allow the Executive
Secretary to observe or split sample any tailings cell, slimes drain, or leak detection
wastewaters.
h8) Sample Omission - in the course of each annual sampling event, the Permittee
shall sample and analyze all tailings cell, slimes drain, and leak detection wastewater
sources identified in the currently approved Tailings and Slimes Drain Sampling
Program (pp. 1-3), or as required by this Permit, whichever is greater. The Permittee
shall not omit sampling of any of tailings cell wastewater source during said annual
event, without prior written approval from the Executive Secretary.
1 1 . Groundwater Monitoring Modifications - before any modification of groundwater monitoring
or analysis procedures, methods, or equipment, the Permittee must obtain prior written
approval from the Executive Secretary.
F. Rgpontntc ReQunsupNrS - The following reporting procedures for routine and compliance
reports must be met.
L 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
l.E.l,l.E.2, I.E.3, and I.E.5 of this Permit for Executive Secretary review and approval.
Reports shall be submitted according to the following schedule:
22
o
Part I
Permi t No. UGW370004
Table 6. Ground Schedulewater Moni rul Lll
Ouarter Period Due Date
First January - March June I
Second April - June September 1
Third Julv - September December I
Fourth October - December March 1
Failure to submit the reports by the due date shall be deemed as noncompliance with this
Permit. Said monitoring reports shall include, but are not limited to, the following minimum
information:
a) Field Data Sheets - or copies thereof that provide the following: well name, date and
time of well purging, date and time of well sampling, type and condition of well pump,
depth to groundwater before purging and sampling, calculated well casing volume,
volume of water purged before sampling, volume of water collected for analysis, types of
sample containers and preservatives.
b) Laboratory Results - or copies thereof that provide the following: date and time sampled,
date received by laboratory, and for each parameter analyzed, the following information:
laboratory result or concentration, units of measurement, minimum detection limit or
reporting limit, analytical method, date of analysis, counting errorforradiologic analyses,
total cations and anions for inorganic analysis.
c) Water Table Contour Map - which provides the location and identity of all wells sampled
that quarter, the measured groundwater elevation at each well measured in feet above
mean sea level, and isocontour lines to delineate groundwater flow directions observed
during the quarterly sampling event.
d) Quality Assurance Evaluation and Data Validation - including a written description and
findings of all quality assurance and data validation efforts conducted by the Permittee in
compliance with the currently approved Groundwater Monitoring Quality Assurance
Plan. Said report shall verify the accuracy and reliability of the groundwater quality
compliance data, after evaluation of sample collection techniques and equipment, sample
handling and preservation, analytical methods used, etc.
e) Non-conformance disclosure - with each quarterly groundwater monitoring report the
Permittee shall fully and completely disclose all non-conformance with requirements of
the currently approved QAP, mandated by Part I.E.1(a).
0 Electronic Data Files and Format - in addition to written results required for every
sampling report, the Permittee shall provide an electronic copy of all laboratory results
for groundwater quality monitoring conducted. Said electronic files shall consist of
Comma Separated Values (CSV) format, or as otherwise approved by the Executive
Secretary.
g) Time Concentration Plots - with each quarterly groundwater monitoring report the
Permittee shall submit time concentration plots for each monitoring well for the
following constituents: chloride, fluoride, sulfate, and uranium.
2. Routine DMT Perforrnance Standards Monitoring Report - the Permittee shall provide
quarterly monitoring reports of all DMT performance standards monitoring required by Parts
23
o
Part I
Permit No. UGW370004
LD.3 and I.E.7 of this Permit. DMT monitoring shall be conducted in compliance with this
Permit and the currently approved DMT Monitoring Plan. When a liner repair is performed
at the Roberts Pond or any DMT irnpoundment. a Repair Report is required by the Liner
Maintenance Provisions. This Repair Report shall be included with the next quafierly DMT
Report. Said monitoring reports and results shall be submitted for Executive Secretary
approval on the schedule provided in Table 6, above.
3. Routine Cell 44 BAT Perfonnance Standards Monitoring Reports - the Permittee shall
provide quarterly monitoring reports of all BAT performance standards monitoring required
by Part I8.8 of this Permit. BAT Monitoring at Cell 4,A. shall be conducted in compliance
with the currently approved BAT Monitoring Operations and Maintenance Plan. Said
monitoring report and results shall be submitted for Executive Secretary approval on the
schedule provided in Table 6 above. At a minimum, reporting of BAT monitoring for Cell
4A will include:
a) LDS Monitoring -
1) Report on the operational status of the LDS pumping and monitoring equipment
during the quarter, including identification of any inteilals of non-operational status
and repairs.
2) Measurement of the weekly fluid head at the lowest point of the secondary
membrane.
3) Measurement of the volume of all fluids pumped from the LDS.
b) Measurement of the weekly wastewater fluids elevation in the Cell 4,{ to determine
freeboard.
c) Slimes Drain Recovery Head Monitoring as per the requirements of Parts I.D.6) and
r.8.8(b).
DMT and BAT Performance Upset Reports - the Permittee shall report any non-compliance
with the DMT or BAT performance criteria of Part I.D in accordance with the requirements
of Part I.G.3 of this Permit.
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 apermit application or
in any report to the Executive Secretary, 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 Executive Secretary approval within 60 calendar
days of well completion, and at a minimum will include the following information:
a) Geologic Logs - that detail all soil and rock lithologies and physical properties of all
subsurface materials encountered during drilling. Said logs shall be prepared by a
Professional Geologist licensed by the State of Utah, or otherwise approved beforehand
by the Executive Secretary.
4.
5.
6.
24
o
Pa
Pe
rtI
rmit No. UGW370004
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,
Design, type, diameter, and construction of protective surface casing, and
Survey coordinates prepared by a State of Utah licensed engineer or land surveyor,
including horizontal coordinates and elevation of water level measuring point, as
measured to the nearest 0.01 foot.
c) Aquifer Permeability Data - including field data, data analysis, and interpretation of slug
test, aquifer pump test or other hydraulic analysis to determine local aquifer hydraulic
conductivity in each well.
7. White Mesa Seeps and Springs Monitoring Reports - a seeps and springs monitoring report
shall be submitted for Executive Secretary review and approval with the 3'd Quarter Routine
Groundwater Monitoring Report due on December l, 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 LF.l(a) of this Permit,
Laboratory Results - for each sample collected that comply with the requirements of part
I.F.1(b) of this Permit,
Water Table Contour Map - that includes groundwater elevations for each well at the
facility and the elevations of the phreatic surfaces observed at each of the seeps and
springs sampled. The contour map will include all water level data measurements from
seeps, springs, and monitoring wells at the site from the 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,
Data Evaluation - and interpretation of all groundwater quality data collected,
Quality Assurance Evaluation and Data Validation - for the seeps and springs water
quality data that meets the requirements of Part LF.l (d),
Electronic Data Files and Format - that meet the requirements of Part I.F.l(e) of this
Permit, and
Survey data for the seeps and springs shall be based on an elevation survey, conducted
under the direction of and certified by a Utah licensed professional engineer or land
surveyor. The survey will include State Plan Coordinates (northings and eastings) and
vertical elevations. The surveyed coordinates and elevations of the seeps and springs
shall be within I foot of the highest point of the saturated seepage face on the day of the
4)
5)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
s)
2.5
t
Part I
Permit
8.
9.
No. UGW37O004
survey. This survey data must be obtained before any samples are collected.
Chemicals Inventory Report - at the time of Permit renewal the Permittee shall submit a
report to update the facilities chemical inventory report required by Part LH.1. Said report
shall provide all inventory information gathered pursuant to Part I.E.9.
Tailings Cell Wastewater Quality Reports - all annual wastewater quality sampling and
analysis required by Part LE.10 shall be reported to the Executive Secretary 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.1(a), (b), (d), and (e) of this Permit, and
c) For slimes drain samples, the Permittee shall report depth to wastewater measurements
from the water level measurement point. Said wastewater level shall be measured
immediately before sample collection.
10. Revised Hydrogeologic Report - pursuant to Part IV.D of this Permit, and at least 180
calendar days prior to Permit expiration, the Permittee shall submit for Executive Secretary
approval a revised hydrogeologic report for the facility and surrounding area. Said report
shall provide a comprehensive update and evaluation of:
a) Local hydrogeologic conditions in the shallow aquifer, including, but not limited to:
local geologic conditions; time relationships and distribution of shallow aquifer head
measurements from facility wells and piezometers; local groundwater flow directions;
and distribution of aquifer permeability and average linear groundwater velocity across
the site, and
b) Well specific groundwater quality conditions measured at facility monitoring wells for all
groundwater monitoring parameters required by this Permit, including, but not limited to:
temporal contaminant concentrations and trends from each monitoring well; statistical
tests for normality of each contaminant and well, including univariate or equivalent tests;
calculation of the mean concentration and standard deviation for each well and
contaminant.
ll.Annual Slimes Drain Recovery Head Report - on or before March 1 of each year the
Permittee shall submit for Executive Secretary approval an annual slimes drain recovery head
report for Tailings Cells 2 and 3. Said report shall conform to the requirements of Part
I.D.3(b), I.E.7(b), and tr.G of this Permit, and:
a) Provide the individual monthly slimes drain recovery head monitoring data for the
previous calendar year, including, but not limited to: date and time for the start and end
of recovery test, initial water level, final depth to stable water level and equivalent
recovery water level elevation.
b) Calculate the average slimes drain recovery head for the previous calendar year.
c) Include a time series chart to show trends of the monthly recovery water level elevations
at each slimes drain.
26
tt
Part I
Permit No. UGW370O04
d) Include the results of a quality assurance evaluation and data validation. Said
examination shall provide written descriptions and findings that:
1) Evaluate all data collected, data collection methods, and all related calculations
required by this Permit, and
2) Yerify the accuracy and reliability of both the data and calculations reported.
e) Demonstrate compliance status with the requirements of Part I.D.3(b) and I.E.7(b) of this
Permit.
G. OUToFCoMPLIANCE STATUS
1. Accelerated Monitoring Status - is required if the concentration of a pollutant in any
compliance monitoring sample exceeds a GWCL in Table 2 of the Permit; the facility shall
then:
a) Notify the Executive Secretary in writing within 30 calendar days of receipt of data, and
b) Immediately initiate accelerated sampling of the pollutant as follows:
l) Quarterly Baseline Monitoring Wells - for wells defined by Part I.E.l(b) the
Permittee shall initiate monthly monitoring.
2) Semi-annual Baseline Monitoring Wells - for wells defined by Part I.E.l(c) the
Permittee shall initiate quarterly monitoring.
Said accelerated monitoring shall continue at the frequencies defined above until the
compliance status of the facility can be determined by the Executive Secretary.
2. Violation of Permit Limits - out-of-compliance status exists when the concentration of a
pollutant in two consecutive samples from a compliance monitoring point exceeds_:
*)Ae GWCL in Table 2 of this Permit er
b) The eeneentratierrvalue eirny pellutant in twer er nrereeonseeutivesamples is stetistieally
3. Failure to Maintain DMT or BAT Required by Permit
a) Permittee to Provide Information - in the event that the Permittee fails to maintain DMT
or BAT or otherwise fails to meet DMT or BAT standards as required by the Permit, the
Permittee shall submit to the Executive Secretary a notification and description of the
failure according to R3l7-6-6.16(CX1). Notification shall be given orally within 24-
hours of the Permittee's discovery of the failure of DMT or BAT, and shall be followed
up by written notification, including the information necessary to make a determination
under R317-6-6.16(C)(2), within five calendar days of the Permittee's discovery of the
failure of best available technology.
b) TheExecutiveSecretaryshallusetheinformationprovidedunderR3lT-6-6.16.C(1)and
27
Part I
Permit No. UGW370004
any additional information provided by the Permittee to determine whether to initiate a
compliance action against the Permittee for violation of Permit conditions. A
compliance action shall not be initiated, if the Executive Secretary determines that the
Permittee has met the standards for an affirmative defense, as specified in R317-6-
6.16(CX3).
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:
The Permittee submitted notification according to R317-6-6.13,
The failure was not intentional or caused by the Permittee's negligence, either in
action or in failure to act,
3) The Permittee has taken adequate measures to meet Permit conditions in a timely
manner or has submitted to the Executive Secretary, for the Executive Secretary's
approval, an adequate plan and schedule for meeting Permit conditions, and
4) The provisions of UCA 19-5-107 have not been violated.
4. Facility Out of Compliance Status - if the facility is out of compliance, the following is
required:
a) The Permittee shall notify the Executive Secretary of the out of compliance status within
24-hours after detection of that status, followed by a written notice within 5 calendar days
of the detection.
b) The Permittee shall continue accelerated sampling pursuant to Part I.G.l, unless the
Executive Secretary determines that other periodic sampling is appropriate, until the
facility is brought into compliance.
The Permittee shall prepare and submit within 30 calendar days to the Executive
Secretary a plan and a time schedule for assessment of the sources, extent and potential
dispersion of the contamination, and an evaluation of potential remedial action to restore
and maintain groundwater quality to insure that Permit limits will not be exceeded at the
compliance monitoring point and that DMT or BAT will be reestablished.
The Executive Secretary may require immediate implementation of the currently
approved contingency plan in order to regain and maintain compliance with the Permit
limit standards at the compliance monitoring point or to reestablish DMT or BAT as
defined in the Permit.
Where it is infeasible to reestablish DMT or BAT as defined in the Permit, the Permittee
may propose an alternative DMT or BAT for approval by the Executive Secretary.
H. CouplnNCE ScHEDULE REeUIREMENTS. The Permittee will comply with the schedules as
described and summarized below:
1. On-site Chemicals Inventory Report - the Permittee shall complete a historical review, and
conduct an inventory of all chemical compounds orreagents stored, used, or currently in use
at the facility. Said report shall include:
1)
2)
c)
d)
e)
28
I
Part I
Permi r No. UGW370004
a) Identification of all chemicals used in the milling and milling related processes at White
Mesa, and
b) Determination of the total volumes currently in use and historically used, as data is
available.
At the time of Permit renewal, the Permittee shall submit an updated inventory report
pursuant to Part I.F.8.
2. Infiltration and Contaminant Transport Modeling Work Plan and Report - the Permittee shall
submit for Executive Secretary approval an infiltration and contaminant transport modeling
report that demonstrates the long-term ability of the tailings cells cover system to adequately
contain and control tailings contaminants and protect nearby groundwater quality of the
uppermost aquifer. Said report shall demonstrate how the tailings cell engineering design
and specifications will comply with the minimum performance requirements of Part I.D.6 of
this Permit. The Permittee shall submit an infiltration and contaminant modeling for
Executive Secretary approval, that:
a) Identifies all applicable and pertinent historic studies and modeling reports relevant to
tailings cell cover design and tailings cell system performance.
b) Determines and justifies all information necessary for infiltration and contaminant
transport modeling, including but not limited to representative input values for vadose
zone and aquifer soil-water partitioning (IQ) coefficients, tailings source term
concentrations, tailings waste leach rates, vadose zone and aquifer groundwater
velocities, vadose zone and aquifer dispersivity, contaminant half-life or other rates of
decay, etc. In the event that any required information is not currently available, the
Permittee may select conservative assumptions for use in the required infiltration and
contaminant transport models.
c) Identifies and adequately describes all computer models used to simulate long-term
performance of the tailings cells cover system. All predictive models used shall be
publicly available computer codes that adequately represent field characteristics and
physical processes at the tailings disposal site. Said description will also include specific
information on model design, including, but not limited to: governing equations and their
applicability to site conditions, grid design, duration of simulation, and selection of time
steps.
d) Determines the conceptual model used and justifies why it is representative or
conservative of actual field conditions at the site. Said conceptual model will identify the
physical domain(s) and geometries simulated including the tailings cell design and
construction, all boundary and initial conditions assigned in the model(s), and the
shallow aquifer locations where future potential contaminant concentrations have been
predicted.
e) Justifies how the infiltration and contaminant transport problem has been adequately
conceptualized, planned, and executed to demonstrate compliance with the requirements
of Part I.D.6 of this Permit.
0 Provides, describes and justifies the following:
1) Model Results - including electronic input and output files from all infiltration,
29
o
Part I
Permi t No. UGW370004
groundwater flow and contaminant transport models used the report.
2) Model Calibration - including description of results and efforts used to demonstrate
how the model adequately reproduced field measured heads, flows, and contaminant
concentrations.
3) Steady State Conditions - including a demonstration that the models achieved a
steady state condition during the simulation. This includes, but is not limited to
disclosure, evaluation and justification of water and mass balance error values
reported by the models.
4) Sensitivity Analyses - including description of various model simulations run and
evaluated to define the range of model uncertainty. Such uncertainty includes, but is
not limited to: boundary and initial conditions, model input values, and spatial and
temporal distribution of model parameters used in the problem domain.
5) Post-model Audit Plan - including plans to revisit the modeling effort at some future
time to re-assess its ability to represent site characteristics and predict long-term
performance of tailings cell design and construction, and groundwater protection.
The Permittee shall complete all modeling in accordance with the requirements of Part LH.2
and submit a final report for Executive Secretary approval. In the final report, the Permittee
may include supplemental information to justify modification of certain Permit requirements,
including, but not limited to: the number and types of groundwater compliance monitoring
parameters, tailings cell cover system engineering design and construction specifications,
tailings cell operational requirements, etc. In the event the Executive Secretary requires
additional information, the Permittee will provide all requested information within a time
frame approved by the Executive Secretary. Upon Executive Secretary approval of the final
infiltration and contaminant transport report, the Reclamation Plan may be modified to
accommodate necessary changes to protect public health and the environment.
3. Plan for Evaluation of Deep Supply Well WW-2 - the purpose of this plan is to evaluate the
annular casing seal in water supply well WW-2, and to ensure adequate well casing and
annular seals, in compliance with the regulations of the Utah State Engineer (UAC R655-4-
9), with special emphasis on creating both a physical barrier and hydraulic isolation between
theshallowunconfinedandthedeepconfinedaquifers.@
Me+;+++itt-
On or betbrp January 31.2012. the Permittee shall:
a. Ct;ndr"rct 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 hlydraulic isolation betrveen
the shallow unconfined and the deep confined aquifers. said investigatior:r shali inclueie
one or more of the fbllou,ing investigatiin techniques perfbrmed in accordance with
applicahlg glridance {iorn the [J.S. iinvironmentiiiProtection Agency: lvell casing vicleo
logs. cernent bo-_ncl logs. and/or Lempgratur-e logs.
b. Show that the well casing and annular seal hai,e physical and h)rclraulic integrit)i to isolate
the two aquil'ers menlir:necl above. In the event thaf hydralrlic isolation of the t.rvo
30
Part I
Permit No. UGW370004
aquilers is uncertain or urrsubstr?ntiatecl lbr An.v reason" the Pqrmittee shall repair the well
casing anrl annular seal(s ) to provide r,vell construction that complies with the regulations
of the Utah State Engineer (UAC R655-4-9). After such repails are completed, the
Pprmittee Will. !:onduct repggt*testing using-Ihe investigation technic]rrgs..:r"equirg---------------jl undel'
Part I.II.3(a) to rlenronstrate existence of thc required hr-draulic isolation" and
c. Subrnit a written report iiir Executive Secr"etary afrproval 1o docunieirt the investigation
ancl its findinqs. and any rvell repair activities. Said report shall be certifiecl b)- a Lltah-
licensed Prolessional Engileer or Geologist.
ng0
ir
npesitie.r; neble gas
i
',\n exanrinatien ef greundwater age using the tritiun/heliunr 3 methed i'r eaeh rnenitering
well and surfaee water sourees (Tailings eell 1,4 and the nsrthernmest rn'ilellife pend),
I
i#i+d+i*epen*;
rsetepie Uenenmar*sr
lee&tions, The igat*eir
7,
4. New Decontamination Pad - the Permittee shall not use the New Decontamination Pad until
the following conditions are satisfied:
a. Within 30 calendar days of issuance of the Permit, the Permittee shall submit an updated
DMT Monitoring Plan for Executive Secretary approval that includes but is not limited
to the following:
I ) The manner of weekly inspections the New Decontamination Pad, including the leak
detection system and concrete integrity of the decontamination pad.
2) Within 30 calendar days of issuance of
updated Contingency Plan that clarifies
found within the leak detection system
concrete pad.
the Permit, the Permittee shall submit an
what steps will be taken if there is water
and if discrepancies are observed on the
31
Part I
Permit No. UGW370004
3) Annual Inspection - the New Decontamination Pad will be taken out of service and
inspected annually during the second quarter, to ensure integrity of the w'ash pad's
exposed concrete surfaces._ If discrepancies are identified [i.e. crack in the concrete
with greater than 1/8 inch separation (width) or any significant deterioration or
damage of the pad surfacel, repairs shall be made prior to resuming the use of the
facility. The inspection findings, any repairs required, and repairs completed shall be
included in the in the 2no Quarter DMT Monitoring Report due September 1, of each
calendar year.
The Executive Secretary approves the engineering design drawings for the liner and leak
detection system, before they are constructed.
The Permittee shall perform a hydrostatic test that verifies that the steel liner and leak
detection system performs in accordance with the approved drawings and will provide
the test results within 30 calendar days after completion of the test. The Permittee shall
provide at least 10 calendar days notice prior to performing the hydrostatic test to allow a
DRC inspector to be present.
d. The Executive Secretary approves all the As-Built drawings for the Decontamination
Pad.
5. Existing Decontamination Pad - within 30 calendar days of issuance of the Permit, DUSA
shall perform the following:
a. Submit As-Built drawings of the Existing Decontamination Pad (EDP).
b. Submit an updated BAT/DMT Monitoring Plan for Executive Secretary approval
describing monitoring details and DMT Inspection items for the Existing
Decontamination Pad.
c. Annual Inspection - the EDP will be taken out of service and inspected annually during
the second quarter, to ensure integrity of the steel tank. The inspectior,r findings, any
repairs required, and repairs completed shall be included in the in the 2nd Quarter DMT
Monitoring Report due September 1, of each calendar year.
b.
32
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Part tr
Permit No. UGW370004
PART tr. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
A. RBpReSENTATIVE SarraplrNc. Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements
established under Part I shall be representative of the monitored activity.
ANRI-vrtceL PROCEDURES. Water sample analysis must be conducted according to test
procedures specified under UAC R317 -6-6.3.12 unless other testprocedures have been specified
in this Permit.
PBNaI-rms FoR TAMPERE{c. The Act provides that any person who falsifies, tampers with, or
knowingly renders inaccurate, any monitoring device or method required to be maintained under
this Permit shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 per violation,
or by imprisonment for not more than six months per violation, or by both.
RepoRrNc oF MoNIToRING RESULTS. Monitoring results obtained during reporting periods
specified in the Permit, shall be submitted to the Executive Secretary, Utah Division of Water
Quality at the following address no later than the date specified following the completed
reporting period:
Attention: Compliance and Monitoring Program
State of Utah
Division of Water Quality
Department of Environmental Quality
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4870
The quarterly due dates for reporting are: June 1, September 1, December 1, and March l.
CouplnNcE SCHEDULES. Reports of compliance or noncompliance with, or any progress
reports on interim and final requirements contained in any Compliance Schedule of this Permit
shall be submitted no later than 14 calendar days following each schedule date.
AoontoNel- MONITORING BY THE PERMITTEE. If the Permittee monitors any pollutant more
frequently than required by this Permit, using approved test procedures as specified in this
Permit, the results of this monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting of the data
submitted. Such increased frequency shall also be indicated.
RncoRos CoNrrNrs.
1. Records of monitoring information shall include:
a) The date, exact place, and time of sampling, observations, or measurements:
b) The individual(s) who performed the sampling, observations, or measurements;
c) The date(s) and time(s) analyses were performed;
d) The name of the certified laboratory which performed the analyses;
e) The analytical techniques or methods used; and,
f) The results ofsuch analyses.
H. RsrsNuoN oF RecoRos. The Permittee shall retain records of all monitoring information,
JJ
I
Part II
Permi
J.
K.
t No. UGW370004
including all calibration and maintenance records and copies of all reports required by this
Permit, and records of all data used to complete the application for this Permit, for a period of at
least five years from the date of the sample, measurement, report or application. This period may
be extended by request of the Executive Secretary at any time.
Norrcn oF NoNCoMPLIANCE RBpoRuNc
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,
GroundWaterProtectionSectionat(801) 538-6l46,duringnormalbusinesshours(8:00am
- 5:00 pm Mountain Time).
2. A written submission shall also be provided to the Executive Secretary within five calendar
days of the time that the Permittee becomes aware of the circumstances. The written
submission shall contain:
a) A description of the noncompliance and its cause;
b) The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times;
c) The estimated time noncompliance is expected to continue if it has not been corrected;
and,
d) Steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the
noncompliance.
3. Reports shall be submitted to the addresses in Part II.D, Reporting of Monitoring Results.
Orngn NoNcouplIANCE RgponrINc. 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.
INspBcrtoN AND ENTRv. The Permittee shall allow the Executive Secretary, or an authorized
representative, upon the presentation of credentials and other documents as may be required by
law, to:
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 Permiq
Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must be kept under the
conditions of this Permit;
Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including monitoring and control
equipment), practices, or operations regulated or required under this Permit; and,
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.
2,
^J.
4.
34
a
Part III
Permit
A.
B.
No. UGW3700O4
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 Executive Secretary of the Division
of Water Quality of any planned changes in the permitted facility or activity which may result in
noncompliance with Permit requirements.
Pnualrrcs FoR VIoLATIoNS oF PBRUIT CoNoruoNs. 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.
Nseo ro Halr oR RBouce AcrtvITY Nor A DerBNsp. 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.
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-
PRopBn OpsnertoN AND MAINTENANCE. The Permittee shall at all times properly operate and
maintain all facilities and systems of treatment and conffol (and related appurtenances) which are
installed or used by the Permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions of this Permit.
Proper operation and maintenance also includes adequate laboratory controls and quality
assurance procedures. This provision requires the operation of back-up or auxiliary facilities or
similar systems which are installed by a Permittee only when the operation is necessary to
achieve compliance with the conditions of the Permit.
C.
D.
E.
35
A.
B.
D.
E.
F.
C.
G.
Part IV
Permit No. UGW370004
PART IV. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
PleNNBo CueNces. The Permittee shall give notice to the Executive Secretary as soon as
possible of any planned physical alterations or additions to the permitted facility. Notice is
required when the alteration or addition could significantly change the nature of the facility or
increase the quantity of pollutants discharged.
ANrtcperBD NoNCoMILIANCE. The Permittee shall give advance notice of any planned changes
in the permitted facility or activity which may result in noncompliance with Permit requirements.
Penutr AcrtoNS. 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.
Durv ro ReAppLy. If the Permittee wishes to continue an activity regulated by this Permit after
the expiration date of this Permit, the Permittee must apply for and obtain a new permit. The
application should be submitted at least 180 calendar days before the expiration date of this
Permit.
Durv ro PnovIDE INFoRMATIoN. The Permittee shall furnish to the Executive Secretary, within
a reasonable time, any information which the Executive Secretary may request to determine
whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and reissuing, or terminating this Permit, or to
determine compliance with this Permit. The Permittee shall also furnish to the Executive
Secretary, upon request, copies of records required to be kept by this Permit.
OrsBR INn'oRtuRrtoN. When the Permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant
facts in a permit application, or submitted incorrect information in a permit application or any
report to the Executive Secretary, it shall promptly submit such facts or information.
SIcNaroRv ReQuneueNTS. All applications, reports or information submitted to the Executive
Secretary shall be signed and certified.
1. All permit applications shall be signed as follows:
a) For a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer;
b) For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner or the proprietor,
respectively.
c) For a municipality, State, Federal, or other public agency: by either a principal executive
officer or ranking elected official.
2. All reports required by the Permit and other information requested by the Executive
Secretary shall be signed by a person described above or by a duly authorized representative
ofthat person. A person is a duly authorized representative only if:
a) The authorization is made in writing by a person described above and submitted to the
Executive Secretary, and,
b) The authorization specified either an individual or a position having responsibility for the
36
o
Part IV
Permit
H.
No. UGW37O004
overall operation of the regulated facility or activity, such as the position of plant
manager, operator of a well or a well field, superintendent, position of equivalent
responsibility, or an individual or position having overall responsibility for
environmental matters for the company. (A duly authorized representative may thus be
either a named individual or any individual occupying a named position).
3. Changes to Authorization. If an authorization under Part IV.G.2. is no longer accurate
because a different individual or position has responsibility for the overall operation of the
facility, a new authorization satisfying the requirements of Part IV.G.2 must be submitted to
the Executive Secretary prior to or together with any reports, information, or applications to
be signed by an authorized representative.
4. Certification. Any person signing a document under this section shall make the following
certification:
"I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared
under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that
qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my
inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly
responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant
penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and
imprisonment for knowing violations."
PnNaI-ups FoR FALSIFICATIoN oFREeoRTS. 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 orreports
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.
AvR[-asLITy oF REroRTS. Except for data determined to be confidential by the Permittee, all
reports prepared in accordance with the terms of this Permit shall be available for public
inspection at the offices of the Executive Secretary. As required by the Act, permit applications,
permits, effluent data, and groundwater quality data shall not be considered confidential.
PRopeRrv Rtcsrs. 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.
SnvnRlsu-trv. 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.
TRaNsrERs. This Permit may be automatically transferred to a new Permittee if:
l. The current Permittee notifies the Executive Secretary at least 30 calendar days in advance of
the proposed transfer date;
I.
J.
K.
L.
37
o
Part IV
Permit No. UGW37OOO4
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,
The Executive Secretary does not notify the existing Permittee and the proposed new
Permittee of his or her intent to modify, or revoke and reissue the permit. If this notice is not
received, the transfer is effective on the date specified in the agreement mentioned in
paragraph 2 above.
M. 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 19-5-115 ofthe
Act.
N. RBopBNSR PRovtsIoNs. This Permit may be reopened and modified (following proper
administrative procedures) to include the appropriate limitations and compliance schedule, if
necessary, if one or more of the following events occurs:
1. If new ground water standards are adopted by the Board, the Permit may be reopened and
modified to extend the terms of the Permit or to include pollutants covered by new standards.
The Permittee may apply for a variance under the conditions outlined in R317-6-6.4(D).
2. Changes have been determined in background groundwater quality.
3. The Executive Secretary determines permit modification is necessary to protect human health
or the environment.
2.
J.
38
ATTACHMENT 4
Well MW-24 Hydraulic Testing Results
November 3,2009
I{YDRO GEO CHE]I,I, TNC.
Eny iron tnenta l ki n t * tr Te chn o lagy
November 3,2009
Mr. David Frydenlund, Esq.
Denison Mines (USA) Corporation
1050 17th Street, Suite 950
Denver, Colorado 80265
Dear Mr. Frydenlund,
This letter discusses hydraulic testing of MW-24 at the White Mesa Uranium Mill site (he
site) during the week of October 19,2009, which was performed in conjunction with the hydraulic
testing of the recently installed TWN-series wells. The location of MW-24 is shown in Figure l.
Test Procedures
Hydraulic testing procedures were substantially the same as those used previously at the site,
as reported in Hydro Geo Chem (HGC), 2OO5t . Tests consisted of slug tests using submersible
pressure transducers and data loggers to continuously record water level data before and during each
test. Automatically logged data were obtained at 5-second intervals. Water levels were also measured
by hand before and during each test using an electric water level meter. The hand-collected data
served as an alternate set of data that could be independently evaluated and used to verify the
automatically logged data.
Results
Test data were reduced and analyzed using the Bouwer-Rice and KGS slug test solutions
available in AQTESOLV in substantially the same fashion as reported in HGC, 2005. Table 1
summarizestheresults. Detailsoftheanalysisincludingthefitstothemeasureddataareprovidedin
Appendix A.
' Hyd.o Geo Chem, Inc. 2005. Perched Monitoring Well Installation and Testing at the White Mesa Uranium Mill,
April through June 2005.
H:\7 I 8000Uydtst0g\rnw24\I.{W24repoft -doc
,,t_'-C
ffi 520.293.1500 s20.29s.tsso-ra: 800.722.5547jrhillircc5l \{est trlttn.rore, Suitc Tucson, Alizoru 85705-1678
Mr. David Frydenlund, Esq.
November 3,2009
Page 2
As shown in Table l, estimated hydraulic conductivities for MW-24 ranged from
approximately 4.2x 10-sto 3.0x 10-5 centimeters per second (cm/s) depending on the solution
nrethod and whether hand-collected or automatically logged data were analyzed. These results are
within the range previously reported for the perched zone atthe site.
Figure I is a water level contour map for the second quarter of 2009. A hydraulic gradient of
0.0122 feet per foot (ftlft) in the vicinity of MW-24 was calculated for the pathline shown in
Figure l. Using the hydraulic gradient of 0.0122 ft/ft, an average hydraulic conductivity of
3.66 x 10-5 cm/s (the average of the Bouwer-Rice and KGS results for automatically logged data),
and a porosify of 0.18, a perched water pore velocity of approximately 2.5 feet per year (ft/yr) is
calculated. These results are summarized in Table 2.
Conclusions
The results of the hydraulic testing of MW-24 indicates that the perched zone hydraulic
conductivity in the vicinity of this well is within the range previor"rsly reported for the site, and the
perched zone pore velocity in the vicinity of the well is estimated to be less than l0 ftlyr.
Sincerely,
Associate Hydrogeologist
Attachments
H :\7 I 8000\hydlsl09\nw24\M W24reporl.doc
1
2
ATTACHMENTS
TABLES
MW-24 Slug Test Results
Estimated Perched Zone P ore Velocity
FIGURE
Kriged 2nd Quarter,2009 Water Irvels. White Mesa Site
APPENDIX
Detailed Data Analysrs
TABLES
Automatically Logged Data Hand Collected Data
KGS Bouwer-Rice KGS Bouwer-Rice
Test Saturated
Thickness
K
(cm/s)
Ss
(1/ft)
K
(cm/s)
K
(cm/s)
Ss
(1/f0
K
(cm/s)
MW-24 3.4 4.16E-05 5.20E-03 3.15E-05 3.03E-05 0.0152 3.03E-05
TABLE 1
MW-24 Slug Test Results
Bouwer-Rice = Unconfined Bouwer-Rice solution method in AqtesolvrM
cm/s = Centimeters per second
ft = Feiet
K = hydraulic conductivity
KGS = Unconfined KGS solution method in AqtesolvrM
Ss= specffic storage
H:\71 8000\hydtst09\mw24\MW24Tables.xls: Table 1 1 t/3/2009
TABLE 2
Estimated Perched Zone Pore Velocity at MW-24
Wel!Hydraulic Conductivitt'Pathline Head Change Hvdraulic Gradient Pore Velocitv
(cm/s)(ft/yr)(ft)(ft)fvfr lllyr
MW-24 3.66E-05 3.74E+01 1 635 20 1.22E-02 2.54
Nofes:
'Average of KGS and Bouwer-Rice estimates.
Assumes effective porosity of 0.18
cm/s = Centimeters per second
fUft = Feet per foot
fUyr = Feet per year
H171 8000\hydtst09\mw24\MW24Tables.xls: Table 2
o
FIGURE
l,I
ll\\
//
tt//
1.5
\\
\N .\\
t
ooo
//
//__:___-v\ l*\-_r,
-
0 3000
SCALE IN FEET
MW-22 .:Gi5o ////////
O stoc
O ss;e
EXPI.ANAIIgN
perched monitoing well showing
elevation in feei amsl ,r" Pathline nBr Mw'24
//////////temporary perched monitoring well //showing elevation in teet amsl NOTES: Locations and elevatlons tOrTW4-2g,fW4-24 and TW+25 arePtEZ-re 55!3
f::0,
$ is:;
ff:w
perchd piezometer showng
elevation in teet amsl
p€rched mon[oring well rnstalled Apnl, 2005
showing el€vation in l@t amsl
temporary perched monitorin9 well installed
April,2005 showing elevation in teet amsl
temporary perched monitoring well installed
May, 2007 showing approxinate elevation
.,85 r'
^}(
)Er'&)\IU F.,(
<{
\\Iil
lt
FTTDRO
. GEO
*,- CHEM, INC.-*!{}
KBIGED 2nd QUARTER,2OO9 WATER LEVELS
SHOWING ASSUMED PATHL]NE NEAR MW.24
WHITE MESA SITE
APPENDIX A
DETAILED DATA ANALYSIS
1.
0.8
-- h -B!-tr --...-...-
trtrdba tr tr !-ir-D
*i 0.6
co
Eoo(u
E-.q iA[l
o.2
0.
0.01 0.1 1. 10.
Time (min)
1 00.1 000.
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H 171 8000\hydtst09\mw24\m
Oate: ttl03/Og Time: 10:39:55
PROJECT INFORMATION
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 3.4 ft
lnitial Displacement: 0.5 ft
Total Well PenetrationDepth :
Casing Radius: 0.167ft
WELL DATA (mw24)
Static Water Column Height: 3.4 ft
Screen Length: 3.4 ft
Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 4.155E-5 cm/sec Ss = 0.005202 ft-1
KzlKr = 0.1
qtr-.q!_tr
u€-n.__a.q
_. o-.€_
n- s-n-'+--'
D-
co
E
o)()(d
E-.9o
Time (min)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H :\71 8000\hvdtst09\mw24\mw24br.aqt
Date: 11/03/09 Time: 10:40:50
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: MW-24
AQUIFER DATA
Anisotropy Ratio (KzlKr): 0.1
WELL DATA (mw24)
lnitial Displacement: 0.5 ft Static Water Column Height: 3.4 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 3.4 ft Screen Length: 3.4 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167ft . Well Radius: 0.28ft
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
K = 3.152E-5 cm/sec
Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
1.
0.8
g 0.6
Co
Eoo(d
E-3 0.4
0.2
0.
10.
Time (min)
0.1
n ]----.---. -- tr tri-€_-'-t]- -
h
\-g
oqo
't .\
a\
\\**''-..
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H f71 8000\hydtst09\mw24\m
Date: 11/03/Og
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test we-il: MVv-z+
AQUIFER DATA
Initial Displacement: 0.5 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth:
Casing Radius: 8.167 ft
WELL DATA (mw24)
Static Water Column Height:
Screen Length: 3.4 ft
Well Radius: 0.28 ft
Solution Method: KGS Model
ss = 0.01523 ft-1
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
Co
Eoo(d
o-
.9.o
Time (min)
-tr.!\tr'\\CL'at ...
il.\
o'..\
o\
ot..tr'\
t-Q
'd..
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set : H :\7 1 8000\hydtst09\mw24\mw24h br. aqt
Date: 11/03/09 Time: 10:41:22
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: MW-24
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 3.4 ft Anisotropy Ratio (KzlKr): 0.1
lnitial Displacement: 0.5 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth:
Casing Radius: 0,167 ft
3.4 ft
WELL DATA (mw24)
Static Water Column Height: 3.4 ft
Screen Length: 3.4 ft
Well Radius: 0.28 ft
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
K = 3.031E-5 cm/sec
SOLUTION
Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
y0 = 0.3944 ft
ATTACHMENT 5
DRC Well MW-24 Memorandum
January 11,2009
ffi
State of Utah
GARY R. HERBERT
Govemor
GREG BELL
Lieutenanl Govemor
o
Departmen
vironmental
tof
Quality
Amanda Smith
Executive Director
DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
Dane L. Finerfrock
Dircctor
MEMORANDUM
,l;"r"", :::",Morron, sectionManager (#n
Phil Goble, Hydrogeologist ?k0
rf pf,,
FROM:
DATE:January ll,2OA9
Review of Well Nnry-z{ SIug Tests Results at the White Mesa Uranium Mill in
Blanding, Utah
As discussed in the September 2009 SOB (p.21 - 22), Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (hereafter
DUSA) failed to provide aquifer permeability and velocity information for well MW-24 in the
August 3,2005 Revised Hydrogeologic Report. Because of this, the Executive Secretary took a
conservative approach and assigned a quarterly sampling frequency for well lv[$l-24 at Part
I.E.1(a).
The September 2OO9 SOB also stated: "In the event that DUSA provides the necessary
information, the Executive Secretary may reconside1 this decision and modifi the Permit as
needed." On November 3, 2009 DUSA submitted (by e-mail) hydraulic testing results for well
MW-24, in the form of a November 3,2O09 technical report prepared by Hydro Geo Chem, Inc.
(HGC).
In this report, HGC performed slug testing in monitoring well MW-24 to determine the hydraulic
conductivity of the formation adjacent to the well. Equipment used to perform the slug tests was
an electric water level meter and a submersible Mini-Trollru pressure transducers and data
loggers. These were used to measure water levels during and after withdrawal of the slug blank
from the well. The pressure transducer was lowered to a depth that was below the Iowest point to
which the bailer would be injected. A bailer was lowered into the water column in the well and
the water level was allowed to return to static conditions. Once static conditions were achieved,
the bailer was removed and the data was recorded at 5-second intervals until water levels in the
well had fully recovered.
Data recorded by the transducer was transferred to the analytical program AQTESOLV rM to
evaluate the slug test data. Test data were reduced and analyzed using the Bouwer-Rice and
Kansas Geological Survey (KGS) solutions available in AQTESOLV rM software and was done in
l6E North 1950 West. Salt lake City, UT
Mailing Address: P.O. Box lzl4850 . Salt lake City, UT 84114-4850
Telephone [phone] . Fax (E0l) 5334097 . T.D.D. (801 ) 5364414
www.deq.utah.gov
Printed on 100% rcycled paper
Page2
the same fashion as reported in the August 3,2005 Revised Hydrogeologic Report. In addition to
the slug test data, AQTESOLV rM required input of the following data values:
. saturated thickness. screen lengtho total well penetration deptho wellbore radius. casing radiuso gravel pack porosityo anistropy iatio (Kzllk)
Saturated Thickness, Screen Length, and Total Well Penetration
The saturated thickness was the difference between the static water level measured just prior to
the aquifer test and the depth to the Brushy Basin contact. Because the static water level was
below the top of the screen interval and the bottom of the screen is at the Brushy Basin contact,
the saturated thickness was also the effective screen length and well penetration depth. DRC
verified the HGC calculations in Table 1 of the November 3,2009 technical report.
Wellbore Radius and Casing Radius
At well MW-24, HGC calculated the wellbore radius atO.28 feet and casing radius at 0.167 feet.
The DRC has reviewed the as-built report for well }ldW-24 and agrees with these calculations.
Gravel Pack Porosity
The August 3,2005 Revised Hydrogeologic Report estimated the gravel pack porosity for the new
wells (MW-23,Mw-24,Mw-25,Mw-27, Mw-28, Mw-29, Mw-30, Mw-32) installed during
May 2005 tobe3O7o. All the wells slug tested were gravel packed with 10-20 Colorado Silica
Sand. The range of values for the porosity of sand is 25-5OVo (Freeze and Cherry 1979).
Therefore, the gravel pack porosity of 30Vo is reasonable and acceptable value for well MW-24.
Hydraulic Conductivity
The KGS solution allows estimation of both specific storage and hydraulic conductivity. The
KGS solution generally allows a fit to both early and late time data, and is sensitive to storage. In
well MW-24 hydraulic conductivity was calculated at 4.6E-05 cm/s under the KGS method.
The Bouwer-Rice solution is valid only for the straight-line portion of the data when log of
displacement is plotted against time. Typically, only the mid to later-time data are interpretable.
Under the Bouwer-Rice method, HGC calculated the hydraulic conductivity in well MW-24 at
3.15E-05 cmls, using the straight line portion of the hydraulic response data (mid-range) and an
assumed Anisotropy Ratio (KzlKr) of 0.1. This anisotropy assumption conflicts with previous
HGC hydraulic analysis, where an Anisotropy Ratio of 1.0 was used for all wells. For details, see
the table below:
Report Date Monitoring Well Hydraulic Conductivity
(cm/s)
Ausust 22,2002HGC MW-l 8.9E-07
1993 Peel MW-2 4.7E.05
August 22,2002HGC MW-3 2.28-07
1993 Peel MW-4 9.48-06
August 22,2002HGC MW-5 3.5E-05
1993 Peel MW-l1 1.4E-03
1993 Peel MW-12 2.28-05
1993 Peel MW-14 7.58-04
1993 Peel MW-15 1.98-05
Auqust 22,2002HGC MW-17 2.68-06
Ausust 22,2002HGC MW-18 2.78-06
August 22,2002HGC MW-19 2.4E-04
August 22,2002HGC MW-20 r.3E-05
Ausust 22,2002HGC MW-22 9.38-07
Ausust 3,2005 HGC MW-23 2.28-07
November 3,2009 HGC MW-24 3.66E-05
Ausust 3. 2005 HGC MW-25 l.lE-04
Ausust 3, 2005 HGC MW-27 7.28-05
Ausust 3,2005 HGC MW-28 1.88-06
Ausust 3, 2005 HGC MW-29 1.1E-04
Ausust 3, 2005 HGC MW-30 8.1E-05
August 3,2005 HGC MW-31 7.1E-05
August 3,2005 HGC MW-32 2.98-05
Statistics Combined Previous Pump and Slug Tests
Maximum 1.4E-03
Minimum 2.28-07
Mean 1.3E-04
Geometric Averaqe 1.8E-05
HGC did not justify why they used a different Anisotropy Ratio for well MW-24 in their
November 3, 2009 submittal.
To calculate a final hydraulic conductivity for MW-24, HGC averaged both the Bouwer-Rice
(3.15E-05 cm/s) and KGS (4.6E-05 cm/s) solutions for an average of 3.66E-05 cm/s. Because
both numbers are very close in range, this may be appropriate. The previous HGC reports also
used the same approach to determine a final permeability, by averaging the results of two separate
analyzes under the Bouwer-Rice and KGS methods. The closest monitoring well to MW-24 is
MW-2, which is approximately 500 feet away. As shown on the table above, well MW-2has a
calculated hydraulic conductivity at 4.78-05 cm/s, which is comparable to the 3.66E-05 cm/s at
well MW-24.
Based on information above, HGC performed the slug tests with acceptable equipment, data, and
methods to estimate hydraulic conductivities (Ks) at the site. The DRC compared the final HGC
Page 4
permeability reported in well NlW-24 with the approved hydraulic conductivity values of other
nearby DUSA wells, as taken from the previous HGC reports, see the table above.
While, HGC did not justify why they used a different Anisotropy Ratio for well MW-24 (0.1) than
the other wells previously installed, tested, and analyzed under the Bouwer-Rice method, the DRC
staff believe the final result for well MW-24 is an adequate approximation at this time for the
following reasons:
l. Acceptance of the 3.668-5 cm/sec result for MW-24 will allow the DRC to finalize the
Permit without further delay.
2. Because, HGC did not consider anisotropy when calculating hydraulic conductivity in the
previous reports (prior to November 3,2009), it is possible the previously calculated Ks
were underestimated (Zlotnik, 1994).
The DUSA Permit renewal application was received by DRC on September l, 2009, and is
currently under review. DRC will have an opportunity to ask DUSA to further examine
andjustify this discrepancy at a later date.
The estimated permeability results in an average linear velocity of about 2.5 ftlyr (see
below), which is well below the threshold of l0 ftlyr that triggers quarterly groundwater
monitoring frequency.
Pore Velocity (Average Linear Groundwater Yelocity)
To calculate the pore velocity in well MW-24, HGC used a hydraulic gradient of 0.0122 ft/ft, a
porosity of 0.18 and the average hydraulic conductivity of 3.66E-05 cm/s for a water pore velocity
of 2.5 ftlyr.
The hydraulic gradient used by HGC, 0.0122 ftlft, and was based on hydraulic heads near well
MW-24 during the 2'd Quarter of 2009. DRC found this gradient to be appropriate after review of
three other recent water table contour maps (4tn etr, 2008; l't etr, 2009, and 3'd etr, 2009). HGC
also used an effective porosity of 0. I 8 for each well in the August 3, 2OO5 Revised Hydrogeologic
Report. This is the same value used in the previous HGC reports, and is therefore acceptable.
Therefore, the DRC agrees with the reported aquifer permeability (- 2.5 ftlyr) near well MW-24.
Conclusion
As described in the DUSA Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit - December 1,2004
Statement of Basis, there are two different frequencies of routine groundwater monitoring at the
White Mesa Mill, as follows:
o Semi-annual (2-times/year) where groundwater velocity is less than 10 feet/year, ando Quarterly (4-times/year) where groundwater velocity is equal to or greater than l0
feet/year.
Because well MW-24 has a groundwater velocity less than l0 feet/year, DRC staff recommends to
the Executive Secretary that well MW-24 be changed to a semi-annual sampling frequency in
Parts I.E.1(b) and I.E.1(c) of the Permit.
3.
4.
Page 5
As described above, HGC assumed an Anisotropy Ratio of 1.0 for all wells in the August 3,2005
Revised Hydrogeologic Report. Because HGC assumed isotropic conditions at those wells, it is
possible the Ks in these were underestimated, which could also underestimate the average linear
groundwater velocity in those wells.
DUSA Permit Renewal Application
Review of the Permit Renewal Application is currently on going. UAC R317-6-6.3(Q) allows the
Executive Secretary to ask the Permittee for addition information. As part of the review process,
it is recommended that the Executive Secretary require DUSA to recalculate hydraulic
conductivity for every well on site for the following reasons:
1) Because, HGC did not consider anisotropy when calculating hydraulic conductivity in all
HGC reports prior to November 3,2009, it is possible the Ks in these wells were
underestimated. Further, professional literature references indicate that the anisotropy
ratio (Kr / Kz) should be determined independently before interpreting slug test data
(Zlotnik, 1994). Therefore, at a minimum, re-evalution is in order for confirmation of the
recent MW-24 permeability estimates via the Bouwer-Rice method.
The mounding effect on the perched zone is advancing across the site, steepening gradients
and increasing groundwater flow velocities (DRC 2004). It is possible that wells with a
calculated velocity of less than 10 ft/yr back in 2005, may have increased to greater than
l0 ft/yr today.
Additional groundwater hydraulic head data gathered from new wells installed in the
perched zone, may indicate steeper hydraulic gradients are present in some areas, ,
resulting in increased groundwater flow velocities there. Such steeper gradients could
increase flow velocities to be greater than 10 ft/yr at those locations.
2)
3)
Page 6
References
Freeze,Allan R. and Cherry, John A., 1979, Groundwater, Table2.4.
Hydro Geo Chem, Inc., January 30,2004, "Site Hydrogeology and Estimation of Groundwater
Travel Times in the Perched Zone White Mesa Uranium Mill Site near Blanding, Utah."
Hydro Geo Chem, Inc., October 20,2004, "Perched Zone Water Movement, White Mesa
Uranium Mill Site Near Blanding, Utah."
Hydro Geo Chem, Inc., August3,2005, "Perched Monitoring Well Installation and Testing at the
White Mesa Uranium Mill April through June 2005."
Hydro Geo Chem, Inc., Prepared for Denison Mines (USA) Corp., November 3,2OOg.*MW-24
Letter Report." 13 pp. [transmitted via lll3/09 email from David Frydenlund (DUSA) to
Loren Morton (DRC).
Utah Division of Radiation Control, November 23,2004, "Review of Hydro Geo Chem,Inc.
Report - Report on Perched Zone Water Movement, White Mesa Mill Site, near Blanding,
Utah, October 20,2004," unpublished regulatory document from Dean Henderson to
Loren Morton 3 pp.,2 tables, and 4 figures.
Utah Division of Radiation Control, December l,2004, "Statement of Basis for a Uranium
Milling Facility at White Mesa, South of Blanding, IJtah," unpublished regulatory
document, 57 pp., and 12 attachments.
Utah Division of Radiation Control, Novembe r 16,2OO7,"Revised Hydrogeologic Report -
Groundwater Discharge Permit (Permit), Partl.H.Z, Denison Mines (USA) White Mesa
Mill, near Blanding, IJtah," unpublished regulatory document from Dean Henderson to
Loren Morton 5 pp., I figure, 3 tables.
Umetco Minerals Corporation and Peel Environmental Services, 1993, "Groundwater Study,
White Mesa Facilities, Blanding, Utah."
Utah Division of Water Quality, March 17 ,2008, Ground Water Discharge Permit, DUSA, permit
No. UGW37OOO4.
Utah Division of Water Quality, September 2,2009, Draft Ground Water Discharge Permit,- DUSA, Permit No. UGW370004
zlotnik, vitaly, September - october, lgg4, "lnterpretation of Slug and packer Tests in
Anisotropic Aquifers," Ground Water, Yol.32, No. 5, pp.76l -766.