DRC-2010-008245 - 0901a068809be153

T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
ORIGINALTRANSCRIPT
DENiSON MINES (USA) CORPORATION
WHITE MESA URANIUM MILL
GROUNDI'/ATER DISCHARGE PERl\{IT l\,lODIFICATION
PUBLiC HEARING
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
7:00 p. m.
Held at the Blanding Arts and Events Center
715 tr,test 200 South
Bland'i ng, Utah
Reported by Vicky McDan.i e1, CSR, RMR
CrrrCouRr
I
I
I
t
I
170 South Main Street Suite 300
Salt Lake City, Utah 84't0t
6zoztea)/*d' & q,S Ren+:::c:: E- ne''\ {th,lLi',N 00I pir,,6i61oi . I
Q^ nroilii'ii'-t"t*9
Qrn, *9
THE REPORTING GROUP pH: 801.532.344'l rax: 801.532.3414 ToLLFREE: 977.532..3M1
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
13
L4
15
15
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
I
I
I
t
I
I Ci tiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
2
FOR THE UTAH DIVISION OF RAD]ATION CONTROL:
Phil GobleDepartment of Envi ronmental Qual i ty168 North 1950 !r/estSalt Lake City, Utah 841.44Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]pgoble@utah. gov
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
1.4
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
PROCEEDINGS
MR. GOBLE: 0kay, i t' s seven o,clock and
I'11 go ahead and get started.
l'"ly name i s Phi 1 Gob1e. I'm wi th the
Div'i sion of Radiation Control, and today I have
14r. David Rupp ass'i sti ng me. We're here to take
public comment regarding the proposed changes for the
Whi te Mesa Mi 11 permi t and also f icense amendment.
The way thj s wi 11 work today j s, I'11 go
ahead and make a brief statement, then I wi l1 open
the t'ime over to you to speak.
The way we've set 'i t up, and you saw ou r
public notice, is because we have two different
documents we' re taI ki ng about today , the 1 i cense and
also the permit. We're going to set it up so we'11
talk about the license first and then we'11 talk
about the permi t. So from seven to ei ght we'11 talk
about the 1 i cense, ei ght to ni ne we'11 talk about the
permi t. There may be some people who only want to
make comment on one of them, so we'11 gi ve them an
opportuni ty to 1et me know now, and i f they would
1 i ke to 1eave, they can 1eave, so they don , t have to
stay for the whole time. But if you want to stay for
the whole t'ime, that's f i ne.
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
L0
11
t2
13
L4
15
15
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
Ci tiCourt, LLC
801.532.344t
4
Ihe way thi s i s goi ng to work i s, I'11
give each and every person a chance to talk. you'Il
have f ive minutes to speak. Everyone gets an
opportunity to speak. We have seven people to talk
right now. And then at the end of your five minutes,
what we'11 do i s actua11y, after four mj nutes
we'11 say "one minute" to give you a warning, and
then we'11 say "time." And then we'11 need you to
stop your publ i c comment, and the next person gets
the opportun'i ty.
At the end of the publ i c comment, after
everyone has had a chance, those who st i I I have more
to say wi 11 get the opportuni ty to speak agai n. So
we want to hear everyone i f they have anythi ng to
say.
Also, the pubf ic comment period actually
doesn't close t'i 11 thi s next [",londay, on lt4ay the ].Oth.
So if you don't say everything you'd like to say and
you forget about i t, you sti 11 have the opportuni ty
to make publ i c comment. And you can submi t that to
me ei ther by e-mai 1 , whi ch i s pgoble@utah. gov, or you
can also ma'i 1 that to us. 0ur address can be found
on our website, which 'i s radiationcontrol.utah.gov.
So what I'd like to do now is, I'm going
to look at the list, and I want to determine who is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
t4
15
15
17
18
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
2s
Ci ti Court , LLC
801.532.344L
5
goi ng to speak j ust on the 1 i cense, who on the
permi t, or who's goi ng to speak on both. So .i t looks
1 i ke the f i rst person here weIl , he actually says
he's unsure 'i f he wants to make a comment or not, i s
S teve Hancock . Do you wan t to make a commen t?
MR. HANCOCK: f'm still not sure.
|\4R. GOBLE: 0kay, we'11 put you at the
end. The next person I have here 'i s Bradley Ange1.
MR. ANGEL: I'11 j ust make one comment
addressing both.
|\,lR. GOBLE : 0kay. That sounds f i ne. So
you'11 do both.
0kay. Next we have Toni Turk. Do you
want to do j ust the 1 i cense or the permi t, or both?
0r are you j ust maki ng a general statement?
MR. TURK: Just a general statement.
|VlR. G0BLE: Okay. Atl ri ght. And
Mr. Chris Webb?
l'lR. WEBB : 0ne commen t .
MR. G0BLE : Okay. And t4s . F i elds?
MS. FIELDS: 0n both.
MR. GOBLE: Both. And l,lr . Lyman?
MR. LYMAN: Both .
MR. GOBLE: Both.
0kay. We11, what I'11 do first is, I'11
T
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
L0
11
L2
13
L4
15
15
L7
18
t9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
Ci tiCourt, LLC
801_.532.344L
6
j ust te11 you, I guess, what some of the changes are
for the permit and the license, and then we'11 go
ahead and open up the publ i c comment. And i t looks
1i ke the fi rst person to speak wi 11 be Mr. Angel.
I'11 let you know when that time has come.
io si nce we're goi ng to be talki ng about
the license fjrst, now, the big thing here 'i s Denison
l"lines have proposed to make a new tailings ce11,
Tailings Ce11 48. That is the reason for having this
public meeting today. Some of the changes or
additions to the license include the submittal of an
updated Reclamation Plan and speci fications for
approval to include Ta'i lings Ce11 48, changes 'i n
tai 1 i ngs ce11 wastewater freeboard requi rements, the
submi ttal for approval for wri tten Standard 0perati ng
Procedures, and improvements for content for the
Annual Techni ca1 Evaluati on Report.
And then regardi ng the permi t, we have an
addition of a definit'ion for engineering design
standards for the new Tailings Ce11 48, def inition of
BAT performance standards for Tailings Ce11 48,
i nstallation of at least three new moni tori ng wel1s
hydraulically downgradient of Tailings Ce11 48, the
submi ttal of an updated BAT moni tori ng plan for ce11
48, the subm'i ttal of an additional hydrogeologic
t
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
15
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
7
i nvesti gati on report of nearby seeps and Rui n Spri ng,
and the submi ttal of an engi neeri ng as-bui 1t report
regarding Ce11 48.
So, do we have anyone e1 se who' s maki ng
public comment? We have one more? Can you bring
that to ffie , please.
|\4R. RU PP : Su re . Ac tual 1y , not .
Actua11y, it's a question. tlaybe. It's a maybe.
|vlR. G0BLE: 0kay. Mr. Taylor Lyman, you
have a questj on mark here. Are you wanti ng to make
commen t ?
MR. T. LYMAN: We' 1 1 see.
|VlR. GOBLE: Okay. We11, we can wait until
the end and I can ask you.
All right. Now, like I said, the first
person who wj 11 make public comment wi 11 be
Mr. Bradley Angel. And like I said, what we'11 do is
we'11 give you five minutes, you'11 hear a one-minute
warning, and then we'11 te11 you "time. " Then you
also have the opportuni ty to gi ve your comment agai n.
So 1et's turn thi s over to 14r. Ange1.
MR. ANGEL: Thanks. Good even'i ng. Again,
my name i s Bradley Angel , and my address j s P.0. Box
1078, Moab. And I'm here as director of an
organization ca1led Green Action for HeaIth and
Ci tiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
15
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
Ci tiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
I
Env'i ronmental Just'ice and on behalf of our
consti tuents i n both Grand and San J uan County
i ncludi ng Whi te Basi n Ute communi ty.
A few comments. 0ne i s that I ,ve been
coming to hearings on this mill for a number of years
now, and I know i t' s not how your agency does thi s,
but it's a problem and it,s a flaw that I didn't
receive notice. And unless you affi rmatively sign up
on your webs'i te on the Li stserv, you don't get these
notices.
And that mi ght be somethi ng I can do, but
for people who are actually most di rectly affected by
decis'ions the state makes and is making around this
facility, it's a big problem. Because, for example,
a lot of folks at the V^Jhite Basin Ute community are
1ow i ncome and do not have regular access to
Internet. So the way the rules are set up
systemi ca11y makes i t a real i ty that most folks who
are most af f ected have no idea thi s meeting 'i s even
happen i ng, and i thi nk that, s a reat problem. And
one of the reasons it's such a b'i g problem is that
your agency and other state agenci es consi stently
fail to assess the impacts of actual ones that are
documented as well as potenti a1 i n the future on the
health and environment and cultural resources of this
t
I 1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
Ci tiCourt, LLC
801.532.3447
9
area.
So, for example, you know, when was the
last ti me you a1 1 assessed the yel lowcake comi ng out
of the stacks at the uran"i um m'i l1? when is the last
time the people of Whi te Mesa, the actual tri bal
members, were i nformed about that? I don't know i f
that ever happened.
For the discussion and issues before us
today, i n part'i cular we are very concerned and
opposed to thi s new constructi on that's proposed
because, once again, with the bless'i ng of the state
of Utah, the company 'i s destroyi ng ceremoni a1 ,
potential ceremonial but certainly culturally
si gni fi cant si tes that are well documented, that,
j ust as you at the state, the people i n thi s audi ence
would not want or churches and temples desecrated,
this once again with the state blessings is what's
happening.
We think not only is that unethical and
immoral , we also th'i nk i t's i 11ega1 . And i t doesn,t
matter from our perspective if it's happening on
private 1and, because it's happening courtesy of
state permi ts.
The State of Utah has an obljgation. you
are making consideration under federal rutes. you
I
I
I
T
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
t4
15
L6
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
C'itiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
L0
have delegated authori ty from the federal government
to run thi s program. And I would venture to guess
that the Division of Radiation control receives some
other addit"ional types of benefits, maybe f-inanc-ial
benefi ts, such as grant program or other support from
the federal government.
If any of that is true, whjch I think al1
of it probably is, then the state once again is
violating the United States Civ'i 1 R'i ghts Act, T.i tle
VI . And I've rai sed thi s before, and i t's completely
ignored by the state.
As a recipient of federal funding, you are
prohjbi ted from taking any actions that would have
di scrim'i natory or di sproportionate impact on low
i ncome people of co1or, 1 i ke the Whi te Mesa Ute
people. It's i11ega1.
MR. RUPP: 0ne m'i nute.
MR. ANGEL: And the desecration and
absolute destruction of ancient sites that could
involve burials that are certainly culturally
significant, not just some ancient artifact for a
museum; they're part of the livi ng culture of the
people here. And your agency, by the dec.i sions
you've made in the past and by the one I believe
you're planni ng on approvi ng, whi ch you should not,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
L0
11
L2
13
L4
15
15
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
Ci tiCourt, LLC
801. s32.344L
LL
would not only help desecrate these s'i tes, continue
to devastate the culture of the native peoples of
this area, and we believe violate the Civjl Rjghts
Act. 5o we really want you to take a look at that
before any decisions are made. Thank you.
MR. GOBLE: Mr. Ange1, did you want to
reserve any time for later?
MR. ANGEL: No. Thank you.
|t,lR. GOBLE: Ai1 right. 0ur next person
wi 11 be a Mr. Toni Turk.
MR. TURK: Thank you. I appreciate the
opportuni ty to address thi s body. I'd 1 i ke to
i ntroduce myself. I'm the mayor of Blandi ng, and I
would t i ke to respond to some of Mr. Angel's
comments. Si nce he i s from Moab, he may not be, you
know, as'i nformed about the communicat.ions and the
processes that occur here as someone that i s local.
I would poi nt out that Whi te Mesa, Inc. i s
a major employer of the Whi te Mesa Ute communi ty and
works in collaboration with Denison M'i nes for that
empl oymen t .
The other part to that is that Cleo
Bradford, who has worked very closely wi th the Whi te
Mesa Utes, i s very computer 1 i terate and i s able to
receive and disperse all communications that pertain
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
16
t7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
Ci tiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
L2
to that commun i ty and , to my knowledge, does that .
In fact, they have a Ute meeti ng house j ust close to
this facility.
The other i s, at Rotary Club recently we
had a detailed presentation of the archeological
recovery of knowledge that Deni son Mi nes has funded,
and that has added significantly to the database of
understanding of the cultures that have lived here
anciently. And all of those art'i facts that are
recovered and recovered accordi ng to archeologi cal
procedure are made available for further research at
the Edge of the Cedars Museum.
Now, I would like to address the plans for
this expansion of the new ce11 and express confidence
i n the sc i ence that the Wh i te Mesa management ,
Deni son M'i nes, the j r oversi ght that they have
exerci sed. If there was somethi ng that was goi ng to
be going on ten miles from this community that was a
threat to thi s communi ty, Blandi ng Ci ty would be the
f i rst i n 1 i ne to be concerned. But we do have
confidence that they are professional and that good
sci ence i s goi ng forward. And there i s a place for
regulatory oversi ght, and that i s to ensure that
those processes are appropriate and timely and that
the necessary adj ustments are made as adj ustments are
I
T
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
L5
15
t7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
Ci tiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
13
seen to be needed.
I would like to point out that San Juan
County i s the most i mpoveri shed county j n the state
of Utah. By some reckoni ng, i t's somewhere between
the 8th and the 15th most impoverished county in the
Uni ted States. And to not support one of the ma'i n
economi c engi nes that support thi s economy and
support a large porti on of our i ndi genous peoples and
thei r 1 i vef i hoods I thi nk would be shortsi ghted. i t
certainly would fa11 short of being concerned for the
life, liberty, pursuit of happiness of our population
that reside here.
And I would express the opinion that
Denison Mines is good for our community, it's good
for our area, 0rd we have every conf i dence that they
are bei ng good nei ghbors and that they are bei ng good
contri butors to our economy.
l4r.
Mr.
Those are my thoughts.
MR. G0BLE: A11 right. Thank you,
Turk. 0ur next person that wanted to speak is
Chris Webb.
t.4R. WEBB: He11o. My name is Chris tnlebb.
the Blandi ng ci ty manager.I am
I have been associ ated wi th the mi 11 most
of my life growing up here in Blanding. In fact, i
I
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
1.4
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
I
I Ci tiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
L4
was involved 'i n the construction of the mil1, though
at that time was not aware at what point I might get
involved or be 'i nvolved with the mi11 and their
operat'ions there.
As I started my j ob as the Blandi ng Ci ty
manager L4 years ago, the miIl operations have been
up and down. They've been able to propose di fferent
actions out there again to continue to see the
f urther v'i abi 1i ty of the operati ons there.
As those things have happened, it's raised
questions in the minds not only of Blanding citizens
but of other people around i n the region. And a lot
of people get very, very emoti onal 1y i nvolved i n
these thi ngs, sayi ng, f i sten, we love the area, we
love the surroundi ngs, and we' re worri ed, what's thi s
going to do to us. And we can't get too caught up
emotionally. We have to rely on the sciences and we
have to get involved.
For those reasons, as a communi ty we
approached the NRC and said, okay, te11 us what's
real. We need to know if there is a health and life
saf ety threat here. We need to know 'i f there j s a
problem. Because agai n, as our mayor has j ust stated
previously, we'11 be the first to step in 1ine.
Because the health and life safety of our citizens is
T
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1o
11
L2
13
t4
15
15
t7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
15
more important than any economi c development,
obviously; although, again, that's an important part
of a communi ty i f i t can be done ri ght.
5o meeting with them and having the
sci ences explai ned to us and what's happeni ng and how
those protections are in place and what needs to
happen, it was amazing. It was absolutely amazing to
find out the things that have to be done and all the
regulations 'i n place to ensure public safety.
The State of Utah, Blanding City, 5an Juan
County, none of us want to see anybody hurt or
damaged. And what we have found out i n our
experi ence over the many, many years now i n deal i ng
wi th the mi 11 i s that they are a very good steward
and a very good partner and a very good communi ty
member. And i f those regulations are followed to the
T, all the way down to what kj nd of penci 1 you can
use i n maki ng your reports and si gni ng your names and
those kind of things, it's just amazing to me all the
regulations that you have to fo11ow through.
And as those things, the sciences and
stuf f were expla'i ned to us, we became very supportive
of the processes and became very confi dent that they
can continue those processes if those regulations
that are set up by the sc'i entists that run our nation
Ci tiCourt, LLC
801.532.344t
I
I
I
I
I
T
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
T
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
L3
L4
15
15
L7
L8
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
and run our state. We appreciate that. Again,
emotions set aside, we support what's happeni ng there
and want to speak i n favor of that.
t,lR. G0BLE: All right. Thank you,
Plr. webb. The next person that wanted to speak i s
Ms. Fields.
MS. FIELDS: My
I agree with the previous speakers that
the regulations and the implementation of the
regulations by the licensee are very important. I
wi 11 be submi tti ng some wri tten comments, but I also
have a few oral comments.
First regards the archeological resources
at the mi11. currently archeological excavation is
taki ng place from ei ther a few over ten
archeological sites are being excavated. Most of the
archeological sites on white Mesa are ancient pit
houses.
I represent an organization
Moab, Utah. And I thank you
speak.
When the site
1970's and early 1980's,
a rcheologi cal excavat i on .
Some of those ended up at
name 'i s Sa rah F'i elds , and
named Uranium Watch in
for the opportunity to
was constructed i n the late
there was extensive
Art'i f acts were taken.
the University of Utah;
Ci tiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
L0
LL
L2
13
L4
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
t7
some of those ended up at Edge of the Cedars. And
yet in the past 30 years, none of those artifacts
have been exhibited at Edge of the Cedars, and there
have been no addit'i onal studies and there have been
no presentat'i ons related to that extensive
a rcheologi ca1 excavat i on .
Although artifacts will be taken,
essentially these historic, to fle, incredibly
beaut'i fu1 and significant sites that could have been
the basis for a national monument here 'i n San Juan
County, whi ch would probably over the years have
brought more economic benefi t to thi s area, these
s'i tes wi 11 also be destroyed. They wi 11 be destroyed
by the construction of the mi11.
So the essence of these s'i tes will be
destruct'ion. And as the mi 11 expands, more si tes
wi 11 be destroyed, because Whi te Mesa of i tself i s an
archeologicai district, and I would think that the
communi ty would have more of an i nterest i n
preserving those s'i tes.
I've talked wi th the NRC recently about
whether Secti on 105 consultati on was requi red. I
have not yet gotten a response f rom them. They ' re
looking into this. But I think the failure of the
Division of Radiation Control and the failure of the
Ci tiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
t4
15
L5
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
Ci tiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441.
18
Utah Hi stori ca1 Soci ety to consult wi th the Whi te
Mesa Ute and the Ute Mountai n tri ba1 governments and
the Navajo tribal historic preservation is
unacceptable, and I feel the D'iv'i sion of Rad'i ation
Control must consult wi th these enti ties before they
approve this license amendment.
Also, license condit'ion 9.7 needs to be
stricken from the license. That license condition
perta'i ns to cultural resources at the mi11 and refers
to a memorandum of agreement between the Utah State
historical preservation officer
MR. RUPP: 0ne m'i nute.
MS. FIELDS: the advisory counc'i 1 in
historic preservation, the NRC and energy is nuclear.
This MOU is totally out of date. It's from L919,
amended 'i n 1983. It doesn't refer to the current
condi t'i ons of the I i cense, so that f i cense cond'i ti on
should be revi ewed and should be brought up to date.
Let's see. I'11 j ust go on what I have
time for. 0h. A1so, the Division of Radiation
Control should make the effluent moni tori ng reports
and any addi tional ef f luent moni tori ng 'i nf ormat'ion
submi tted by the 1 i censee pursuant to 1 i cense
condi tion LL.2 avai 1ab1e on the DRC websi te. you've
done a really good j ob to make all the documents
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
L0
11
t2
13
L4
15
15
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
19
relating to this f icense amendment request, the cell
4A
|\4R. RUPP: Ti me' s up.
l',l5. FIELD5: the license ava.i 1ab1e, and
I commend you for that. Thank you.
l,lR. GOBLE: Thank you, Ms. Fi elds. Would
you like to reserve some t'ime after everyone else has
had the opportuni ty to speak?
MS. FIELDS: Yes.
|VlR. GOBLE : Okay. We' 1 1 go ahead and do
that for you. The next who wanted to speak was
Mr. Joe Lyman.
MR. J . LYMAN: I ki nd of stumbled i nto
f inding out this meeting was happening, and I sent
out an e-mai 1 to a f ew people, hop'i ng they could get
here. And I'11 address a thought to that a Iittle
bi t later.
But my impression of what's happened wi th
the mi 11 over the years that i t's been there, I
worked there for a period of time when I was younger,
i s that by and large they've been very responsi b1e
wi th what they've done. I thi nk that Mr. Webb's
comments addressed that poi nt.
I have seen at ti mes, some of the
opposition to activity of the mi11 have not been well
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
15
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
20
f ounded. t'ilaybe some of them have, maybe some of them
haven't; but I know there's been some of the
opposition expressed that turned out to not be
parti cularly well founded. So I can't address what
anybody i s sayi ng today. It's j ust been hi stori cal
observation.
I thi nk the employment that they provide
i s cri ti cal . As Playor Turk i llustrated, we' re i n an
ext remely depressed economy , and a lot of the
employment that the mj 11 provides i s to the very
people that some say we should be protecti ng from the
mi 11. And i t could be devastati ng to the enti re area
to not have that employment and support that, whi ch I
do.
I'm pretty sure we could probably have a
roomful of people here i n support of the mi 11 , but
they, f i ke me, are busi nessmen who are tryi ng to
provide f or themselves and provide opportun'i ties f or
others to provi de for thei r fami 1 i es. We' re j ust too
busy. We're tryi ng to make thi s country run, and
frankly, we're too busy trying to do that to spend a
1ot of time and energy comi ng to these ki nds of
meetings.
And on that note, I've sti 11 got work to
do tonight, so I've got to go. But I've got to think
Ci tiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
I
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
15
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
I
T
I
2L
I would represent 50 people 'i f they only had the ti me
and the abi 1 i ty to become awa re of these th i ngs to
come and speak and support the mi 11. I thi nk they
would be here. 5o I support what they're tryi ng to
do. Thank you.
MR. GOBLE : Al 1 r i ght . Thank you ,
Mr. Lyman.
So the next person, we have a Plr. Steve
Hancock. You had unsure. ttnlould you 1i ke to make
a --
MR. HANCOCK: I'm good for now.
MR. G0BLE: All right, Steve. And another
person we have as kind of a maybe was Taylor Lyman.
Would you like to
MR. T. LYMAN: No.
|4R. GOBLE: No. Okay, Ms. F'i elds. And
presently we don't have anyone else on the 1 i st, so
go ahead and speak ti 11 you're done, I guess.
t'{S. FIELDS: I won't take too much time.
MR. G0BL E : 0kay .
MS. FIELDS: In going over the safety
evaluati on report, and I , too, have other employment
and did not have a 1ot of time to go over all of
thisi but when you talk about long-term impacts of
the mi11, it states that the SERs, which is the
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
t
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
14
15
L5
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
Ci tiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
22
Safety Evaluati on Report, whi ch i s the envi ronmental
analysi s that you' re requi red to do for a maj or
1j cense amendment under the Atom'i c Energy Act; the
Atomi c Energy Act has speci f i c requ'i rements f or
agreement states, 0t''td the state of Utah i s an
agreement state under the NRC's regulati on under the
Atomi c Energy Act where the federal government has
given the state of Utah the responsibility for
regulating uran'i um mills jn Utah.
But when you talk about long-term impacts,
you don't rea11y define what long-term impact means.
The SER states that Ce11 48 has been designed to
provide reasonable assurance that radiological
hazards will be suitably controlled for 1,000 years
to the extent reasonably achievable, and in any case,
for at least 200 years. The federal regulati ons
f imit the technical assessment for the technical
requirements for long-term containment of the
tailings to that 200-year to 1,000-year period.
However, we all know that those tai lings
are goi ng to be there i n perpetui ty, forever. So 200
to 1,000 years isn't a very long tjme period when you
thj nk that they are goi ng to be there forever and
ever.
So eventually the 1i ners wi 11 break down,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
15
t7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
Ci tiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
23
the tai 1i ngs cover wi 11 erode, and eventually the
ta'i 1 i ngs and assoc'i ated radi oacti ve and
nonrad'ioactive contami nants w'i 11 di sperse 'i nto the
air, water, and soil. It's not a matter of if , 'i t's
a matter of when. Most you, ffi€, the people i n
thj s room are not goi ng to be here then. But there
st'i11 w'i11 be, hopefully, a population in this area.
And I think when the Division of Radiation
Control looks at the long- term i mpacts that they
rea11y have to at least honestly assess what's goi ng
to happen to those tai 1 i ngs 10,000 years from now
you know, 2 ,000, 10,000, 100,000 yea rs f rom now.
Also, in your SER you talk about isolation
without ongoing ma'i ntenance. And I think the
Divis'ion of Radiation Control in conjunction with the
NRC and i n conj uncti on wi th the Department of Energy,
wh'i ch now has responsi bi 1i ty, that's Department of
Energy now has the responsi bi 1 i ty for long- term
mai ntenance for all the old type, what they call
Title I uranium mi11s, and for any uranium miIls,
other uranium m'i 11s that have closed.
5o they're fi ndi ng out what the i ssues are
even over the short peri od of t'ime of 50 years from
the closu re of some of these s i tes . So they've been
di scoveri ng what some of the long- term mai ntenance
T
I
t
I
t
I
I
t
t
I
T
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
LL
L2
13
L4
15
15
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
Ci tiCourt, LLC
801. s32.344L
24
issues are, whether it's contaminat'ion of the
groundwater. And i n the west there are bi 11ions of
gallons of groundwater that has been contami nated by
uranium mi11s.
So they're looki ng at groundwater
contami nation, they're looki ng at the erosion, and
even now the Department of Energy i s looki ng i nto
different types of caps for mi11 tailings, because I
thi nk they' re fi ndi ng that some of the previ ously
des'i gned caps that have been put in place are really
not as adequate as they had predi cted.
So i think the Division of Radiation
Control with the NRC and the D0E should take a harder
look at what rea11y what 'i s a realistic long-term
maintenance scenario for White l{esa and for other
uranium mi11 tailing s'i tes, whether in Utah or in
other states, ?r''ld take advantage of the new data and
the new information that is being generated so that
when this tailing ce11 and the other tailing ce11 at
Whi te Mesa are complete, have gone through operati on,
they get covered, the plan, the long-term reclamation
plan is adequate.
Thank you.
MR. GOBLE: Thank you, 14s. Fields. Is
there anyone else who didn't sign up who would like
I
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1.L
t2
13
L4
15
15
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
Ci tiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
I
25
to speak now?
MR. TURK: Is 'i t possible f or addi tional
comment?
[./lR. G0BLE: Absolutely, lvlr. Turk. you can
come up, absolutely.
MR. TURK: The poi nt that I would Ii ke to
bri ng forward at thi s time i s, followi ng Katri na,
that di saster on the Gulf Coast, which was
devastating to our country, the Associated press
conducted a study to determ'i ne what ci ty i n the
Uni ted States would be the safest ci ty from natural
di saster, ?rd they came to the conclusi on that
Blanding would be that city. And that was an Ap
publication.
t think that really speaks to the
substructure of the land that we're in. We're not in
an earthquake prone area. We don't have significant
natural disturbance in this area. It would seem that
if you're going to have a location to contain the
materials that need to be contained when we're, you
know, t?1ki ng i n terms of many years i nto the future,
it would seem that this would be a place that would
certainly rise to the top as a locat'ion that would
have a long- term, secure dynami c comi ng from nature
itself.
T
I
I
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
1_1
L2
13
t4
15
16
t7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
I
Ci tiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
26
So with that in mind, I believe that
thi s you know, wi th sci ence, wi th nature, we have
the potenti al to create what we need to create i n
order to produce the energy that this nation is going
to require.
There's been a 1ot of debate about nuclear
energy, and that's not what thi s meeti ng's about; but
on the green side of the equation, huclear energy is
free from a lot of the downsides of other energy
forms. So I just want to add that part.
MR. GOBLE: All ri ght. Thank You,
|Vlr. Turk.
Let' s see. Al so, Mr. Angel , do you have
more? And then we'11 follow up wi th Mr. Webb.
MR. ANGEL: BradleY AngeI . You know,
sc'i ence that al1ows radioactive materials to be
unprotected and unwatched and have no provi sions for
i t f or thousands of years af ter Deni son Mi nes 'i s gone
and we're all gone is a big problem. And as we all
know, for example, i n thi s area the wi nd blows pretty
fi ercely, ?fld leavi ng radi oacti ve materi a1s blowi ng.
I would also ask you if the state agency is aware of
any time, for example, that radioactive materi a1s
associated with this facility ended up not contained,
such as by the h i ghway .
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
LL
L2
l_3
L4
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
27
And aga i n , you know, 'i ssues of what comes
out i n the stack, parti cularly yellowcake. When was
the last time? I think that's really important,
because we' re a1 1 i n a need for good economy , for
health as we11. And I thi nk that i s more important
than that. But, you know, p€op1e also have a right
i n our democ racy to know what they' re bei ng exposed
to, and I don't think that information's been ful1y
d'i sclosed; and I know f or a f act i n talki ng to a
number of tri ba1 members over the years, they di d not
know, for example, that yellowcake was comi ng out of
that stack. And that's unacceptable.
In terms of an economic boom, I think if
you look at, in one short sentence, there's an
economi c boom i n Moab ri ght now resul ti ng i n the
cleanup of the radioactjve pile of tailings from the
old Atlas l\4i 11. But that's not a good si tuation.
It's costing taxpayers millions and milf ions and
mi llions of dollars. So I thi nk we need to be
protective of health.
Also that, whatever your perspective, i f
you're for this facility, aga'i nst it, don't know, I
again want to say that it's not just enough that
['ilr. Bradf ord at Whi te Mesa, Inc. knew about thi s. We
know a number of tri bal members, at 1east, I can't
Ci ti Court , LLC
801.532.344L
I
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
15
L7
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
28
speak for all , had no i dea thi s was goi ng on toni ght
And that's why I think the state has to do a better
job and change the rules to ensure that in a
democracy people have the ri ght to exerci se thei r
democrat rights to participate in decisions that
affect thei r 1 i ves, and that i ncludes knowi ng about
meetings like th'i s. But thank you.
MR. G0BLE : Thank you,
14 r . Webb , you wan ted to
MR. WEBB: I did. Just
14r. Ange1.
say more?
a couple points,
hearing these additional
There's a lot
posi ti on and havi ng to go
myself . In addition to a
envi ronmental certi f yi ng
recogn i zed . We ' ve got to
comments.
of things, being in a city
through this process
city manager, I'm also the
officer for the city, state
go through these processes
all of the t'ime.
And there's a lot of these exi sti ng laws
that we'd like to see changed one way or the other.
It's been addressed here tonight. I think the state
ought to change the rules. They ought to do thi s,
they ought to do that. And some of those rules wi 11
probably go through a process of change.
I also sat on the State Division of
Dri nki ng Water board for ei ght years, went through
Ci ti Court , LLC
801.532.344L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
L1
L2
l_3
L4
15
15
L7
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
Ci tiCourt, LLC
80L.532.344L
29
all kinds of processes and public processes in these
rules. And there's people that come i n all the tj me
sayi ng, these rules need to change; we've got to get
tougher, because what j f, what i f, what i f.
We11, Some of those "what i fs, " as we
di scover more and the sci ences change and they' re
sayi ng that rules need to be changed, great, change
them. But these applications before you today aren't
about those what i fs. And yeah, 00d thi s a good
forum to encourage the state to change the ru1es.
But these applications ought to be judged today on
today's rules and the rules that are today in p1ace.
And j f those rules at some poi nt requi re addi tional
monitoring, great.
But I can te11 you that the moni tori ng i s
happening, that the state ensures the monitoring's
happeni ng, and that the rules are bei ng followed as
they a re i n p1 ace. And so we encou rage the state to
make sure that when they j udge these appl i cati ons for
processes that they're j udgi ng them based on today's
ru1es, not on hopes for changes in future ruIes, but
those rules are changed todaY.
Ihe other poi nt that I wanted to make i s
wi th regard to archaeology. We understand the
important heri tage that comes to the ci ti zens of our
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1L
L2
13
L4
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
30
communi ty i n these archeologi caI si tes. The ci ty of
Blandi ng i s over 40 percent Nati ve Ameri can, so we
understand how important those si tes are, and we
spend as a city in doing our projects hundreds of
thousands of dollars 'i n collecti ng data, i n analyztng
that data so that we can find out and make sure that
we're not letti ng some valuable resource go or some
valuable data go.
But as we go to an area 1 i ke our bi g
reservoi r, when we went out there and put i n out Bi g
Fork Reservoi r, there are so many si tes i n our area
that nothi ng would happen i f we di dn't let any si te
go. So sometimes sites have to be mjtigated. We
collect all the data we can, and then a site is
covered, or could even be lost after that process
happens.
5o we understand that process is
happening, that these applications through these
applications that that process is happening, that the
mi11 has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in
collecting data so that they too could move forward
wi th thei r proj ects. And we would encourage that i n
thi s case, that these appl i cati ons be approved.
MR. G0BLE: Thank you, Mr. Webb.
0kay. If there's no one else that wanted
Ci ti Court , LLC
801.532.344L
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
15
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
31
to speak, we don't have anyone else that si gned up.
We' re scheduled unti 1 9 o'c1ock. So what we'11 do
right now is, I'm going to go ahead and call a
recess. We'11 call a recess for 1et's see. Right
now the time is 'i t's 7:42. Let's call a recess
unti 1 8: L5 and see i f anyone shows up.
For those that are here, You guYS are
welcome to stay. You mi ght have more comment i n the
future. And we're going to be here for I guess the
next half hour to see if anyone else wants to show up
and make comments. 5o I'm going to go ahead and call
a recess ri ght now, ?od we'11 take pretty much a
half-hour break.
(Recess f rom 7:42 p.m. to 8:15 P.m.)
MR. G0BLE: The time i s now 8:15. We'11
go ahead and open back up the meet'i ng. It looks like
no one e1 se has s i gned up to make publ i c comment . So
do any of you gentlemen who are here want to make
comment? 0kay.
I j ust want to let You guYs know that
publ i c comment can be recei ved up to 5 o'clock on
14onday, May L0th. And 1i ke I sai d, you can ei ther
e-mai 1 that to me at pgoble@utah. gov, or you can go
on our website and you can find our address and mail
i t to us. And so long as i t has the postmarked date
Ci tiCourt, LLC
801. s32.344L
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
t4
15
15
L7
1_8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Ci ti Court , LLC
80r..532.344L
32
of that date, May L0th , we' 11 accept 'i t .
I forgot to thank Vi cky here. The person
who was helpi ng us today i s Vi cky McDan'i e1 . I f orgot
to i ntroduce her earli er today, so I wanted to do
that now.
Si nce we don' t have anyone e1 se to make
public comment, I'm going to go ahead and call th'i s
meeti ng ended. So thi s meeti ng i s now adj ourned.
Thank you for attending, and when we have one in the
future, we'd 1i ke your presence agai n. So thank you
very much.
(Meeting adjourned at 8:16 P.m.)
***
T
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
13
L4
15
15
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
33
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
REPORTER' S CERTIFICATE
UTAH )) ss.
SALT LAKE )
I, VICKY l\4cDANIEL, Regi stered 14eli tReporter and Notary Publi c i n and for the State ofUtah, do hereby certi fy:
That on May 4, 2010, the foregoing
proceedi ngs were reported by me i n stenotype andthereafter transcribed, and that a fu11, true, andcorrect transcription of said proceedings 'i s setforth in the preceding pages.
WITNESS t4Y HAND AND OFFICiAL SEAL thi s 9th
day of 14ay, 2010.
Vi c cDaniel
Pubf icNotaResiding in Salt Lake County
V|CKY MCDATjIEL I
NOTABY PtELrc . $ATE ot WAHI120itg Drap€Mlle Avenue IDreper, UT 84020 I
MY C0nnflS$t0t'J EXP|BES: t2.2&Aro I
Ci tiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
T
I
Public Hearing * May 4,2010
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
t
t
I
t
I
I
I
t
T
1,000 tzt22:14,22
1,000-year n22:19
10,000 rzt23:11,12
100,000 ttt23:12
106 n17:22
1078 ttt7t24
1Oth rgr4:17 31:2232:1
11.2rtt18:24
14ttt14:6
15th trt13:5
168 trr 2:3
1950 rrt2:3
1970's rtt16:23
1979 tr: 18:15
1980's trt16:23
1983 trtl8:16
2,000 ttt23:12
200 rzt22=16,21
200-year n22:19
2010 tr:33:14
30 rtt17:2
40 rrr30:2
4Attt19:2
48 pt 6:9, 1 3,20,21,23,25 7 :3
22:12
5
5 rtt31:21
50 tzt21:1 23:23
5364250 rtt2:4
7:42t2t31:5,14
achievable n22:15
Act tst10:9 11:4 22:3,4,7
Action m7:25
actions tzr 10:13 14:8
activity rtt19:25
actual pt8:23 9:5
actually toi4:6,16 5:3 7:7,8
8:12
add tt:26:10
added n12:7
addition pt6:19 28=14
additional n6:25 10:4 17 =418:22 25:2 28:11 29:13
additions rrr6:11
address n 4:22 7 :23 11 :12
12=1319:16 20:4 31:24
addressed tzt 19=23 28:20
addressing rrt5:10
adequate a24:11,22
adjourned et32:8,12
adiustments efl2:25,25
advantage n24:17
advisory tttl8:13
affect trt28:6
affected rl8=12,19
affirmatively trtS:8
agencies n8=22
agency pt 8:6,22 10:23 26:
22
ago tt:14:6
agree trt 16:1 1
agreement rgr 18: 1 0 22:5,6
ahead tg: 3:4,1 1 6:3 19:10
21:18 31:3,11,16 32:7
air n23:4
allows ttr26:16
although rzt15:217:7
amazing H15=7,7,19
amended rrt18:16
amendment rar 3:9 18:6 19:
122:3
American rrr30:2
analysis m22:2
analyzing trr30:5
ancient ';ir10:19,21 16:20
anciently rrr12:9
Angel rr+r5:8,9 6:4 7:17,21,
22,23 10:18 1 1 :6,8 26:13,
15,15 28:8
Angel's ttt11:14
Annualn6:17
another n21:12
anybody tzt15:1120:5
AP trr25:13
applications rot 29:8,1 1,19
30:18,19,23
appreciate all:11 16:1
approached n14:20
appropriate n12:24
approval tz:6:13,15
approve trtlS:6
approved rrr30:23
approving lt10:25
archaeology ttt29:24
archeological rror 12:5, 1 0
1 6: 1 6, 1 7, 1 9,20,24 17:6, 1 8
30:1
areaw)9:1 11:3 13:15 14:
14 17 :12 20:12 23:7 25:17,
18 26:20 30:9,11
aren't trt29:8
around et8:1314:12
artifact n10:21
artifacts vt 12:9 16=24 17 :2,
7
as-built trtT:2
aside rrr16:2
assess pt8l.23 23:10
assessed trt9:3
assessmentn22:17
assisting rrr3:7
associated 'lir13:24 23:2 25:
9 26:24
assurance rt22=13
Atlasu2T:17
Atomic pt22:3,4,7
attending rrr32:9
audience rrr9:15
authority rtt 10:1
available rir12:11 18:24 19:
4
aware s14:221:226:22
=back trt31:16
based n29:20
Basin ra8:3,15
basis ttr{7:'t0
BAT rztBz21,24
beautiful rrr 17:9
became a15:22,23
become ru21:2
behalf trtS:1
believe reir10:24 11:3 26:1
benefit rtt17:12
benefits rzt10:4,5
better n28:2
between rzr13:418:10
big rer6:7 8:14,2126:19 30:
9,10
billions n24:2
bit rrr19:17
Blanding rgr 11 :13 12:19 13:
23,25 14:5,1 1 15:10 25=13
30:2
blessing trr9:1 1
blessings ng=17
blowing n26:21
blows ttt26=20
board n28:25
body rrr11:12
boom et27:13,15
both lgr 5:2,10,12,1 4,21,22,
23,24 8:2
Boxttt7l.23
Bradford et 1 1 =23 27 :24.
Bradley A 5:8 7 :17,23 26:15
break et22:25 31:13
brief rrt 3:1 1
bringetT=S 25:.7
brought rzt17:1218:18
burials trt10:20
businessmen n20:17
O"sV rzZ0.ZO2l _c_
call ret 23: 1 9 31:3,4,5,1 1 32:
7
called n7:25
camem2S:12
caps t2r24:8,10
casea22:15 30:23
caught rtt14:16
Cedars ,rir12:1217:1,3
cell rr+r 6:8,9, 1 3, 1 4,20,21,23,
24 7:3 12:14 19=1 22:12
24:19,19
ceremonial rlr9l.12,13
certainly rar9:13 {0:20 13:
10 25:23
CERTIFIGATE III33:5
certifying rtt28:15
chance s4:2,12
change n 28:3,21,23 29:.3,6,
7,10
changed rsr 28:1 9 29:7,22
changes tst3:8 6:1,10,1i3 29:
21
Chris tet5:1813:21,22
churches rrr9:16
citizens rer14:1 1,25 29:21.5
CitY trzt 12:19'13=2314:ti 15:
10 25:10,1 1,13 28:12,'1 4,
15 30:1 ,4
Givil rzr 10:9 11:3
cleanup n27:16
Cleonll:22
closea4:17 12=2
8:15 rer31:6,14,15
8:16 rtt32:12
801trt2:4
8th rr: 13:5
9 rr:31:2
9.7 rtt18:7
ability rtt21:2
able tztl'l:2414:7
absolute rrr10:19
absolutely rsr 1 5:7 25=4,5
accept n32:1
access rrr8:16
according n12:10
Sheet 1 1,000 - close
closed ttt23:21
closely m11:23
closure n23:24
CIub tttl2:4
Coast rrt25:8
col laboratio n r:t 1 1 :20
collect rrt30:14
collecting rll30=5,21
colonrtl0:15
come tcr6:5 2{ :3 25:5 29:2
comes tzt27:129:25
coming rstS:5 9:3 20:2225=
24 27:11
commend tr:19:5
comment ptt3:8,21 4:9,1 1,
16,20 5:4,5,9,19 6:3 7:5,
11,16,20 25:3 3'l :8,17,19,
2132:7
comments vt8:4 11:15 16:
14,15 19:23 28:11 31:11
communications tz: 1 1 :16,
25
community trzt8:3,15 11 :19
'12:1,18,19'13:.1 4 14:19 15=
3,1517:19 30:1
company n9l.12
complete m24:20
completely tt: 10: 1 0
computer u11=24
concerned Igt9:9 12:20 13:
'10
conclusion n25:12
condition t+t 18:7,8,17,24
conditions n18:17
conducted rrt25:10
confidence s 12=1 4,21 13:
15
confident m15=23
conjunction et23:1 5,16
consideration ltt9:25
consistently tttS:22
constituents lttS:2
constructed n16:22
construction pt 9:1 0 14:1
17l.14
consult tztl8:1,5
consultation vt17:22
contain rrt25:19
contained a25:20 26:24
containmentu22l.18
contaminants trt23:3
contaminated trt24:3
contamination tzt 24: 1,6
content tt:6:16
continue tg: 11 :1 14=8 15:24
contributors ttt13=17
CONTROL tst2:1 3:6 10:3
'17 :25 18:5,21 23:9,1 5 24:
13
controlled n22:14
correct rrt33:12
costing m27:18
councillrtl8:13
country a20:20 25:9
County ta:8:2 13:3,3,5 15:
11 17:11 33:.7,20
couple rtt28:10
courtesy n9:22
cover n23:1
covered a24=2130:15
create rzt26:3,3
critical tt:20:8
GSR rrt33:19
cultural rzt8:25 18:9
culturally tzt 9: 1 3 10:20
culture efl0:2211:2
cultures tttl2:8
current trt18:16
Crrr"ntly t,: t e't Z
D
devastating et 20=12 25l.9
development ttt15:1
different tst3:14 14:7 24:8
directly rttS:12
director tttTl.24
disaster a25:8,12
disclosed ttt27:9
discover tt:29:6
discovering n23:25
discriminatory tt: I 0: 1 4
discussion rrt9:8
disperse all:25 23:3
disproportionate tti 1 0: 1 4
district rtt17:18
disturbance ttt25:18
DIVISION rtot2:1 3:6 10:3
17:25 18:4,20 23:8,15 24:
1228:24
documentedaS:24 9:14
documents rzt 3:1 5 18:25
DOE tr:24:13
doing tt:30:4
dollars H27:19 30:5,20
done rs:15:3,8 18:25 19t22
21:18
down H14:7 15:17 22:25
downgradient tt:6:23
downsides ttr26:9
DRC rrt18:24
Drinking n28:25@
E
e-mail rat4t21 19:1 5 31 :23
each trt4:2
earlier rt32l.4
early trt 16:23
earthquake n25:17
economic rst13:7 15:.1 17:
12 27=13,15
economy w13:7,17 20:9 27:
4
Edge tat 12t1217l.1,3
effluent efl8:21,22
eight rst 3:18,'1 9 28:25
either rel4:21 16l.18 31:22
emotionally rzt 14:13,17
emotions rt16z2
employer rrt 11 :19
employment s 11 :21 20:7,
10,13 21:22
encourage tst 29:1 0,1 8 30:
22
end r+t4:5,11 5:87l.14
ended t+t16:25 '17:1 26:24
32:8
energy rzt18:14 20:22 22:3,
4,7 23:16,18 24l.7 26=4,7,8,
9
engineering tzt 6:1 9 7 :2
engines n13:7
enough ttt27:23
ensure s12:2315:9 28:3
ensures lr:29:16
entire n20:12
entities rtr18:5
environment ttt8:25
E nvi ron me ntal rq 8:1 22l.1
28=15
equation tt:26:8
erode n23:1
erosion ttt24:6
essence tr:17:15
essentially tr:17:8
Evaluation rgt 6: 1 7 21:22 22=
1
even t4t8:.19 23:23 24:7 30:
15
evening n7l.22
eventually tzt 22:25 23l.1
Everyone H 4:3,12,1 4 19:7
everything ttt4:18
example tst 8: 14 9=2 26:20,
23 27:11
excavated ttt {6:19
excavation tat 16:17,24 17 :6
exercise n28:4
exercised n12:17
exhibited u17:3
existing rrt28:18
expands m17:16
expansion n12:14
experience trt 15:13
explained tzt15=5,22
exposed n27:7
express efl2:1413=13
expressed ttt20:3
extensive efl6=2317:5
extent n22=15
e*trerely t,tZ0tg
tr
facility pt8:14 12=3 26:24
27:22
fact rst 12:213:25 27:9
failtrtS:23
failure tzt17=24,25
fall trt 13:10
families trt20:19
favor rrt16:3
federal rer 9:25 10:1,6,12 22t
7,16
damaged n15:12
data ts: 24:17 3025,6,8,1 4,21
database ru12:7
date rar18:15,18 31:25 32:1
David ttt3:7
day ttr33:14
dealing rrt15:13
debate tt:26:6
decisions rnr 8:1 3 10:23 11:
5 28:5
define n22:11
definition tzt6:19,20
delegated tt:10:1
democracy et27:7 28:4
democrat rrr28:5
Denison tet6:7 11 :20 12:6,
16 13:14 26:18
Department H 23:16,17 24=
7
depressed ttr20:9
desecrate tttl1:1
desecrated ttt9:16
desecration ttr10:18
design trt6:19
desig ned rzt 22: 12 24:1 0
destroyed ta'|.7 :13,13,17
destroying rt:9:12
destruction ei0:191|7 =16detailed ttt12t5
determine s4:25 25:10
devastate n11:2
Public Hearing *May 4,2010
CitiCourt, LLC
801. 532.344L
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
T
tclosed - federal
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Public Hearing * May 4,20L0
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
feel tr:18:4
few r+:8:4 16:15,18 19:15
Fields tttt 5:20,21 16:6,7,7
18:1 3 19:4,6,9 21=16,19,
2124:24
fiercely n26:21
financial n1O:4
find p:15:8 30:6 31:24
finding rer 1 9: 1 4 23:22 24=9
fine tztS:25 5:11
first rg:3:17 5:3,25 6:4,7 7=
15 12:20 14:24 16:16
five tet4:3,5 7:18
flaw trrS:7
folks rz:8:15,18
follow tzt15:20 26:14
followed a15:16 29:17
following n25l.7
forever et22=21,23
forget trt4:19
forgot rzt32:2,3
Fork rrt30:11
forms rrr26:10
forum ttt29:10
fonrvard s 12:22 25:7 30:21
found a4:2215=12
founded rl.20:1,4
four tr:4:6
frankly ttt20=21
free lt:26:9
freeboard rr:6:14
fully ttt27=8
funded n12=6
funding n10:12
further et12=11 14l.9
future n8:24 25:21 29:21
31:9 32:10
gallons n24:3
general rztS:15,16
generated u24:18
gentlemen rrr31:18
gets rzr4:3,9
give rsrS:21 4:2,7 7:18,20
given rrt22:8
Goble pzt2:2 3:3,5 5:7,1 1,
17,20,22,24 7 :9,13 1 1 :6,9
13:19 16:4 19:6,10 21 :6,
12,16,20 24:24 2524 26:11
28:8 30:24 31:15
got rst 20:24,25,25 28: 1 6 29,,
3
gotten n17:23
government rer10:1 ,6 22:7
governments rrr18:2
Grand trtS:2
grant trr10:5
gteatet29:7,14
Green et7:25 26l.8
groundwater a24:2,3,5
growing n13:25
guess tq6:1 10:,2 21=18 31
9
Gulf trr25:8
guys t2t31l.7,20
idea rztS:19 28:1
ifs tzt29:5,9
ignored lrrl0:11
illegal tzt9:20 10:16
illustrated rrr20:8
immoraltr:9:20
half rrr 31:10
half-hour rrr 31:13
Hancock r+r 5:5,6 21 =9,1 1
happen H15:7 23:1 1 30:12
happened rgr 9:7 14:10 19:
18
happening rrrr 8:20 9:18,21,
22 15:5 16:2 19:14 29: 1 6,
17 30:18,19
happens rrr30:16
happiness rr:13:11
harder n24:13
hazards n22:14
Health pt7:25 8225 14=21,25
27:5,20
hear s4:147:18
hearing n28:11
hearings rrrS:5
Hello rrr13:22
help rrr 11:1
helping rrr32:3
heritage n29:25
highway n26:25
historic rer 17:8 18:3, 1 4
Historical pr18:1 ,11 20:5
honestly trt23:10
hopefully rtt23:7
hopes n29':21
hoping rrr19:15
hour ttt 31:10
house n12:2
houses ru16:21
However n22:20
hundreds et30:4,20
hurt rrrl5:11
hydraulically rrr6:23
hydrogeologic rrr6:25
I impact rzt10:14 22:11
I impacts rqrS:23 21:24 22:10I zg:g
I implementation rrr 16:12
I important n 15:1 ,216:13I zt:g.s 29:25 3o:3
I impoverished rzr 13:3,5
I impression rrt 19:18
limprovements rr:6:16
I lnc rzr 11:18 27:24
I include rzr6:1 1 ,13
lincludes rrr28:6
lincluding rrrS:3
' income rzrS:16 10:15
incredibly m17.8
indigenous rrrl3:8
i nformation et 18:22 24:1 8
information's rrr27:8
informed rz:9:6 11:16
installation n6:22
interest n17:19
lnternet n8:17
introduce all:13 32:4
investigation lrrT:1
involve n10:20
involved p 14:1,3,3, 1 3, 1 8
isn'tn22:22
isolation n23:13
issues w9:8 23:22 24:1 27
=1
itself rzr 17:17 25=25
J
job rarl4:5 18:25 28:3
Joe n19:12
Juan rar 8:2 13:2 15:10 17 t
10
judge rr:29:19
judged n29:11
judging ru29:20
Justice rrrS:1
Katrina n25:7
kind tar 15:17,19 19:13 21:
13
kinds pt20:22 29=1
knowing rrt28:6@
LAKE tzt33:7,20
landet9:2225:16
large et 13:819:21
last rer9:3,4 27:3
laten16=22
later ra 11:7 19:17
llaws n28:18
I teast rqt6.22 22=16 23=10 27 :lzs
llear" efi:23.23
lleaving ttt26l21
I Iettlng rrr30:7
I liOerty rrr13:11
I Iicense trgt3:9,15,17,19 5:1,
| 14 6:2,7,11 18:6,7,8,8,17,
| 17,23 19=1,4 22:3
I Iicensee rl16:1318:23
I life t+t 13:11,25 14:21,21i
llimitn22:17
Iine tzr 12=2014:24
liners n22:25
listtzt4:25 21:17
listen rt:14:14
ListServ rr:8:9
literate n11:24
little trr 19:16
lived rr:12:8
Iivelihoods rrr13:9
lives rrr28:6
living tt:10:22
localnll:17
location et25=19,23
longet22:2231:25
long-term rot 2'l :24 22:1 0,
1 1,1 8 23:9,1 8,25 24l.1,4,21
25:24
look r+t4:25 11=4 24:14',27:
14
looking s 17 :24 24=5,6,7
looks t+t5:2 6:3 23:9 31116
lost trt 30:15
lot tgtS:15 14:1220:9,22 21:
23 26:6,9 28:12,18
love tz:14:14,15
low rztS:16 10:14
Lyman s 5=22,23 7 :9,12 19=
12,13 21:7,13,15 _M-
made r+r 10:24 11.5 12=11, I25
1mailpt4:2231:24
Imain 11113:6
Imaintenance w 23:1 4,19,25 I24:15 Imajor all:19 22:2 Imanagementnl2tll Imanager Fr13:23 14:6 28: I14 I
mraflV r.r15:13,13 25:21 30=
Imark trtT:1O I
Sheet 2 feel - mark
materia Is tct 25:20 26l. 1 6,21,
23
matter pt9:2123:4,5
mayor tg: 11 :13 14:23 20:8
McDanieltzt32:3 33:19
means rt22=11
meeting tst 6:10 8:19 12:2
15:4 19=14 31 :16 32:8,8,
12
meeting's ttt26:7
meetings pt20:.23 28=7
member trt15:16
members ls: 9:6 27:1 0,25
memorandum tttl8:10
Mesa trgl3:9 9:5 10:15 11:
18,19,24 12:15 16=20 17:
17 '18:2 24=15,20 27:24
might retS:1 1 14=2 31:8
miles tr:12:18
Mill tzg:3:9 8:5 9:4 13:24 14l.
1,3,6 15=14 16:17 17=14,
16 18:9 19:19,25 20:10,12,
16 21:3,25 24:8,16 27:17
30:20
millions tgt 27:1 8,1 8,1 9
mills tst 22:9 23:20,20,21 24l.
4
mind rrt26:1
minds n14:11
Mines to:6:8 11 :20 12=6,16
13:14 26l.18
minute ,;ir4:7 10:17 18:12
minutes lqt 4:3,5,6 7:1 8
mitigated ltt30:13
Moab ta:7:24 11:15 16:9 27:
15
Monday rzt4:17 31:22
monitoring pt 6:22,24 18:21,
22 29:14,15
monitoring's tt:29:16
monument tt:17:10
most tat 8:12,1 8,1 9 13:3,5,
2416:19 23:5
MOU tttl8:15
Mountain n18:2
move n30:21
Ms trzl 5:20,21 16:6,7 18:1 3
1 9:4,6,9 21 :16,19,21 24l.
24
much pt2{ :19 31:12 32:11
museum s10:2212=12
must rttl8:5@
name r+t 3:5 7 ;23'|.3:22'16:7
named rtt16:8
names tr:15:18
nation tzt15:25 26:4
national tt:17:10
native all:230:2
natural tzt25:11,18
nature a25:24 26:2
Navajo lrtl8:3
nearby lt:7:1
necessary n12:25
need tgt 4:8 14:21,22 25:20
26:3 27:4,19 29:3,7
needed rrt13:1
needs tzt15:618=7
neighbors I1113:16
new fl 6:8,20,22 9:10 12:14
24:17,18
next tto:4:9,17 5:8,13 11:9
13:20 16:5 19:11 21:8 31:
10
nine ttt 3:19
none t2115:11 17:2
nonradioactive ltt 23:3
North rtt2:3
Notary rt:33:9
noten20:24
nothing tt:30:12
notice Izt3:14 8:8
notices tttS:10
NRC rsr 14:20 17 :21 18:14
23=16 24:13
NRC's ttt22:6
nuclear tgt 18:14 26:6,8
number H8:5 27=10,25
o'clock pt3:3 31:2,21
obligation n9:24
observation trt20:6
obviously ttt'15:2
occur n1'l:17
officer rl18:11 28:15
Okay rrst 3:3 5:7,1 1,13,17,20,
25 7 29,13 1 4:20 19:10 21 :
16,20 30:25 31:19
old rzt23:19 27=17
oncet3r9:11,1710:8
one 11613:21 4:7 5:9,19 7:5 8:
4,21 10:17,24 13:6 18:12
27:14 28:19 30:25 31:17
32:9
one-minute lttT:18
ones trtS:23
ongoing rtt23:14
only tst3:20 9:19 11':114:11
2',1:1
open t3r3:11 6:3 31:16
Operating tt:6:15
operation w24:20
operations tst {4:4,6,9
opinion ttt 13:13
opportunities trt 20: 1 8
opportun ity tgt 3:22 4=4,1 0,
13,19 7:20 11:1216:9 19:
8
opposed tt:9:10
opposition rll19:25 20l.3
oraltrtl6:15
order trt26:4
organization a7 :25 16:8
other rta: 8:22 10:4,5 11 :22
12:4 14:12 21=22 23:21 24:
15,17,19 26:9 28=19 29:23
others trt20:19
ought vt 28:21,21,22 29:1 1
out ttor9:3 11 =18'13l.2 14:8
15:8,12 18:1 5 19:14,15 20:
3 23=22 27 :2,11 30:6, 1 0,
10
over tl 11 3:12 7 =21 1 5: 1 3 I 6:
18 17:11 19:19 21=21 ,23
23:23 27:10 30=2
ove6iglrttzt12:16,23
D
p.m tst3l:14,14 32212
P.O trtT:23
part i41 10:22 11=2215:2 26:
10
participate ttt28:5
particular ltt9:9
particu larly rz 20l.4 27 :2
partner rrr 15:1 5
past tzt 10:2417:2
pencil rtt15:17
people rrer3:20 4:4 8:129:5,
15 10:1 5,16,23 14:12J3
19:1 5 20:1 1,16 21:1 2325
27:6 28:4 29:2
peoples efl1:213:8
percent ttt30:2
performance trt6:21
period tsr4:16 19:20 22=19,
2223:,23
permit tat 3:9, 1 6, 1 8,20 5:2,
14 6:2,18
permits ttt9:23
perpetuity trt22:21
person rq4;2,9 5:3,8 6:4 7:
1611:913:2016:5 21:8,
1332:2
perspective et 9:21 27 :21
pertain n11:25
pertains trtl8:9
[e-mail] pt2=5 4:
2131:23
Philrz:2:23:5
pile trt27:16
pit tt:16:20
place ret 12:22 15:6,9 16:18
24:10 25:2229:12,18
Plan t+t 6: 1 2,24 24:21,22
planning rtr10:25
plans tt: '12:13
please lrtT:6
point m 11=18 13l.2 14:2 19:
23 25:6 29:13,23
points rrt28:10
population tzr13:1 1 23:7
portion rrr13:8
position trt28:13
possible ttt25:2
postmarked ttt31:25
potential s8:24 9:13 26:3
predicted ttt24:11
presence rrt32:10
presentation tt:12:5
presentations ttt17:5
presently vt21=17
preservation tgt 18:3,1 1, 14
preserving n17:20
Press ttt25:9
pretty tet 20:15 26=20 31:12
previous trtl6:11
previously tzt 1 4:24 24=9
private n9=22
probably t+t10:8 17=11 20:
15 28:23
problem reirBl.7,14,20,21 14l.
2326:19
procedure m12:11
Procedures ttt6:16
proceedings lzt 33:1 1,12
process pt28:13,23 30: 1 5,
17,19
processes H11:17 12:24
1 5:23,24 28:16 29:1,1,20
produce ttt26l.4
professional n'12:21
program a10:2,5
prohibited lttl0:13
projects 12130=4,22
prone u25:17
propose u14:7
proposed tst3:8 6:8 9:10
protecting n2O:11
protections tt:15:6
protective n27:20
Public Hearing '< May 4,2010
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.344t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Imaterials - protective
provide n 20l.7,18,1 8,19 22:.
13
provides n20:10
provisions u26:17
public rro: 3:8, 14 4:9,1 1,16,
20 6:3,10 7:5,1615:9 29:1
31=17,21 32:7 33:9
publication n25:14
pursuant ru18:23
pursuit rrt13:11
put rq SrZ Z+,t O 90,rc
o
question a7:8,10
questions u14:11
RADIATION rsr 2:1 3:6 10:3
17 :25 18=4,20 23:8,1 5 24:
12
rad iationcontrol. utah.gov
t4l,23
radioactive n 23=2 26:16,21,
23 27:16
radiological n22:13
raised a10:1014:10
real tzlS:2014:21
realistic u24:14
reality rrr8:18
really rar 11:4 18:25 22:11
23:10 24:10,14 25:15 27:3
reason tt:6:9
reasonable u22:13
reasonably rtt22=15
reasons a8:2114:19
receive et8:811=25
received u31:21
receives tr:10:3
recently tzt12:417:.21
recess pt 3ll.4,4,5,12,1 4
recipient m10:12
reckoning n13:4
Rec Iamatio n e$: 1 2 24:21
recognized rr:28:16
recovered ei2:10,10
recovery n12:6
refer tt:18:16
refers tr: 18:9
regard n29:24
regarding rsr3:8 6:18 7:3
regards rrrl6:16
region u14=12
regular tttS:16
regulating n22:9
regulation n22:6
regulations n 15:9,16,20,24
16:12,13 22216
regulatory n12:23
related n17:5
relating rrt 19:'t
rely n14:17
Report tsl 6: 1 7 7 :1,2 21:22
22:1
reported rr:33:1 1
Reporter rr:33:9
REPORTER'S rr:33:5
reports efi5:1818:21
represent rlr16l.8 21=1
request ttr 19:1
require rll26:5 29:13
required a17:2222:2
req uirements pt 6:1 4 22:4,
18
research n12:11
reserve rzs11:7 19:.7
reservoir tzt 30:10,1 1
reside u13:12
Residing tt:33:20
resource lrt30:7
resources rgtS:25 16:16 18:I
respond n11:14
response n17:23
responsibility a 22:8 23:17,
18
responsible m19:21
resulting n27:15
reviewed trr18:18
Rights lsr 10:9 11 :3 28:5
rise tt:25:23
RMR trt33:19
room rri23:6
roomfultti20:16
Rotary n12:4
Ruin tr:7:1
rules trerS:17 9:25 28=3,21,
22 29=2,3,7,1 0,12,12,1 3,17,
21,21,22
run t+t10:2 15:25 16=1 20:20
Rupp ts:3:7 7=7 10=17 18:12
19:3
safest n25211
safety pt14:22,25 15:9 21l.
2122:1
SALT pr33:7,20
San t+t 8:2 13:2 15:10 17:10
Sarah n16:7
satn28:24
saw rrr3:13
saying ttt14:14 20:5 29:3,7
says rrt5:3
scenario n24=15
scheduled n31:2
science H 12:1 5,22 26:2,16
sciences H14:17 15:5,21
29:6
scientists m15:25
Section m17:22
secure u25:24
see ler 7:12 14=8 15:1 1 18:19
26:13 28:19 31:4,6,10
seem t2125:18,22
seen I2r'13l.1 19:24
seeps rrrT:1
sent ttt19:14
sentence n27:14
SERrzt22:12 23:13
SERs trt21:25
set lot 3:13,1 6 8:17 15:25 16:
2 33:12
seven tst3:3,18 4:4
short I3r 13:10 23:23 27:14
shortsighted rrrl3:9
show trt31:10
shows rr:31:6
side rri26:8
sign tzrS:.8 24:25
signed eft1:.1,17
significant ''ir9=1 4 10:21 17
=9 25:17
significantly ttt12:7
signing rri 15:18
since lst6:6 11:1532:6
site p: 16:22 30:12,14
sites trot9:14 10:19 11:1 16:
19,20 17 :9,1 3,1 5,1 6,20 23=
2424:1630:1,3,11,13
situation n27:17
Society rttl8:1
soil rrr23:4
someone n11:17
sometimes rrt30:'t3
somewhere n13=4
sounds tr:5:11
speakers rrt16:11
speaks u25:15
specific ttt22=4
specifications rrr 6: 1 2
spend q20:2130:4
spent rrr30:20
Spring trtT:1
stack pt27=2,12
stacks trt9:4
Standard rrr6:15
standards et6:.20,21
started et3:414=5
state t26r 8=13,22 9:1 1,1 5,17,
Public Hearing * May 4,2010
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
23,24 10:8,11 13:3 15:1 0
16:1 18:10 22:5,6,8 2t6:22
28=2,1 5,20,24 29: 1 0, 1 6, 1 8
33:6,9
stated u14:23
statement pt3:1 1 5:15,16
States rt10:9 13:6 21:2t5 22:
5,12 24:17 25:11
stay t3t3:24,24 31:8
stenotype trr33:1 1
stepn14:24
Steve H5l.5 21:8,12
steward n15:14
still tst4:12,1I 5:6 20:2tl23:
7
stop rrr4:9
stricken trt18:8
studies n17:4
study tr: 25:10
stuff trt15:22
stumbled tttl9:13
submit n4:20
submittal rsr 6:1 1 ,15,24,25 7:
2
submitted n18:23
submitting tr:16:14
substructure trt 25:16
suitably rtt22:14
su pport rgt 1 0:5 1 3:6,7,8i 1 6:
2 20=13,16 21:3,4
supportive m15:22
surroundings trr 14:15
systemacally I''r8:€ _T
tailing ret 24:16,1 9, 1 9
tailings rrar 6:8,9, 1 3, 14,2i0,
21,23 22:19,20 23:1,2,1 1
24:8 27=16
talked n17:21
taxpayers n27:18
Taylor a7:9 2'l:13
Technical rer6:17 22:17 ,17
Teln2:4
temples rrt9:16
ten t2112:1816'18
terms et25:2127:13
Thanks u7:22
themselves rrr20:18
there's vt20:2 26:.6 27:14
28:12,18 29=2 30:25
They've s14:7 19:21,22t 23:
24
though ttt14z1
thoughts rt: 13:18
thousands rsr 26: 1 8 30:ti,20
provi de - thou:;ands
threat a12:1914:22
three tt:6:22
tllltzt4:17 21:18
Time's lrt19:3
timely ttt12:24
Title rz:10:9 23:20
today rtz:3:6,10,15 6:10 9:9
20:5 29:8,1 1,12,22 32=3,4
today's tzt29:12,20
Toni rztS:13 11:10
tonight tst 20t25 28=1,20
top rt:25:23
totally ttt 18:1 5
tougher m29:4
transcription ltt 33: 1 2
tribal tst9:5 18:2,3 27=10,25
true tr:10:7
trying pt 20:17,20,21 21l.4
Turk lrot 5:13,16 11 :10,1 1 13:
20 20:8 25:2,4,6 26:12
turnnT:21
turned trt20:3
two ttt3:14
type trr23:19
types trttOr+ Z+rg
lt
unacceptable et 18:4 27 :12
under t+t9:25 22:3,6,6
understand tst 29:24 30:3,
17
understanding tttl2:8
unethicalrtt9:19
United tgt10:9 13:6 25:11
University ttt16:25
unless tt:8:8
unprotected rt26:17
unsure rzt5:4 21:9
untilrsrT:13 31:2,6
unwatched n26:17
up rze:3:13,16 6:3 8:8,1713:
25 14:7,16 15t25 16:25 17:
1 {8:18 19:324:2525:5
26:14,24 31 :1 ,6,10,16,17,
21
updated tzt6:12,24
uranium tat9:4 16:8 22:9 23:
20,20,2124:4,16
UTAH wt2:19212,2413:4
15:10 16:9,25 18:1 ,10 22:
5,8,9 24:16 33:6
Ute m8:3,15 10:15 11:1912:
218:2,2
Utes ttr 11:24
V
valuable tzt30:7,8
venture n10:2
Vl rrr10:10
viability trt14:9
Vicky ret32:2,3 33:19
violate trt 11:3
violating tr:10:9
wait trtT:13
wanted rtt13:20 1 6:5 19: 1 1
28:9 29:23 30:25 32l.4
wanting tttT:10
wants rzt5:4 31:10
warning pt4:7 7:19
wastewater tt:6:14
Watch rrtl6:8
water a23':4 28:25
way 1613:10,13 4;18:17 15:
17 28219
Webb trot 5:1 8, 1 9 13:21,22,
2216:5 26:14 28:9,10 30:
24
Webb's ttt19:22
website rqt4:23 8:9 18:24
31:24
welcome ttr31:8
wells trt6:22
West tzt2:3 24:2
whatever rt27221
whether rir'17 :22 24:1,16
White trst3:9 8:3,15 9:510:
15 11 :18,19 ,23 12:15 16:.
20 17:17 18:1 24:15,20 27:
24
who's tztS:27:4
whole et3:24,25
will rrsr 3:10,1 1 4:13 6:4 7:
16,16 1 1 :10'16:14 17 :7,13,
13,1 5,17 22:1 4,25 23l.1,3,
7 28:22
wind rt:26:20
without n23214
work rar3:10 4:120:24
worked a1'l:2319:20
works ttt11l.20
worried rtt 14:15
written tzt6:1516:14
Y
years ltotS:5 14:6 15=13 17l.
2,1 1 19:19 22:1 4,16,22 23:
11,12,23 25:21 26:18 27:
10 28:25
yellowcake tst 9:3 27 :2,1 1
younger ttt19:20
W
Public Hearing >F May 4,2010
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.344t
T
t
t
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
t
tthreat - younger
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY
for the
Modification to the
Ground water Quality Discharge permit No. ucw3z0004
and the
Amendment to the
Radioactive Materials License No. UTL g0047g
Denison Mines (USA) Corp
White Mesa Uranium Mill
San Juan County, Utah
June 14,2010
Table of Contents
Abbreviations and Acronyms............... ...........2
lntroduction ............. 3
Section I' Written Comments from Sarah Fields, Uranium Watch, Program Director and RelatedOral Comments..,............ .............6
Section 2. Otal Only Comments from Public Hearing Held May 4,2OlO in Blanding, Utah ...... 19
Section 3. Sundry Changes to permit and License. ...........23
References Cited,.......... ............. 24
Appendix A; written comments provided to Utah Division of Radiation control
Appendix B; Transcript of Public Hearing Held May 4, zo1o at Blanding, Utah
Appendix c; Revised Radioactive Materials License No. ur rgoo4Tg
Appendix D; Revised Ground warer Discharge permit No. UGW 37ooo4
Page I of 24
Public Participation SummarY
June 14,2010
Abbreviations and Acronvms
ALARA
Ci
CFR
DOE
DUSA
Division
DRC
EPA
GWDP
LC
LRA
m
mrem
NESHAPS
NRC
OSHA
SER
SHPO
TEDE
Uroa
URCB
URCR
URS
Vz0s
As Low As ReasonablY Achievable
Curie
Code of Federal Regulations
U.S. Department of EnergY
Denison Uranium Mines (USA) CorP.
Utah Division of Radiation Control
(Utah) Division of Radiation Control
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Ground Water Discharge Permit
License Condition
License Renewal APPlication
meter
millirem
National Emission Standards fbr Hazardous Air Pollutants
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Safety Evaluation RePort
State Historic Preservation Office
Total Effective Dose Equivalent
Triuranium octoxide; yellowcake
Utah Radiation Control Board
Utah Radiation Control Rule
URS Corporation
Vanadium (pent)oxide
Page 2 of 2
,
ummaryPublic Participation S
June 14,2010
Introduction
The purpose of this document is to summarize public comments received by the Utah Division of
Radiation Control (DRC) regarding Denison Mines (USA) Corp.'s (DUSA, requesr to amend
their Radioactive Materials License and Ground Water Discharge permit by auihorizing
construction of Cell 48 at its White Mesa Uranium Mill located near Blanding, Utah. dne lettercontaining a set of written comments was received from the public during thelomment period
that ended on May 10, 2010. Several individuals made oral commenrs atlhe public hearing heldon May 4,2010 at the Blanding Arts and Events center in Blanding, utah.
The topics addressed in public comments received by the DRC (including both oral and writtencomments) are summarized in Table 1. These represent general categories that the comments
were organized into. Unique designators (i.e., PC-01 through PC-20) are associated with each
topic In Table 1. The written comments are addressed first, followed by the oral comments. DRC
responses follow below.
' Both written and oral comments.
2 Oral comments made at Public Hearing held in
of this meeting, see Appendix B, below.
Blanding, Utah on May 4,2010. For a transcript
Table l. summary of ropics Addressed in comments Received by DRC.
Topic
Commenter
HEu)fu
ilr-=o
co<
*
F
oF
ab
=0)Q9
N
rD=
Written and Related Ora! Comments Received
PC-01: Archaeological and Cultural Resources x x x x
PC-02: Need to Revise License Condition 9.7 and Associated
Memorandum of Understanding x
PC-03: EffluenUMonitoring Reports Shoutd be Made Available
on DRC Website in Timely Manner x
PC-04: Address Long-Term lmpacts x
PC-05: Permanent lsolation without Maintenance x X
PC-06: Potential for Releases of Radon, Other Gases, and
Hazardous and Radioactive Particulates from lmpoundment
during Dewatering
x x
PC-07: Off Site Measuring Devices X
PC-08: Effluent Control during Operations X
Page 3 of 3
Public Participation SummarY
June 14,2010
The DRC considered all written and oral comments in assessing whether changes should be made
to the proposed revisions to DUSA's Radioactive Materials License and Ground Water Discharge
permii (found at: http://www.radiationcontrol.utah.govAJranium-Mills/IUC/cell4b/
permitMod_licenseAmend.htm). No comments were submitted that would necessitate a change to
ih" Suf"ty Evaluarion Report (SER) or Statement of Basis (SOB). Each written comment received
is restated below verbatim in italics, and is found in Appendix A. Oral comments are presented in
summary form, and a transcript is found in Appendix B. DRC's response and disposition follow
each comment, and is denoted with the words "Division Response" in bold text.
Table 1. Summary of Topics Addressed in Comments Received by DRC.
Topic
Commenter
8.9ah
il":-
Yooo<
+1
F
oF.
o4
EOUB 6)=
PC-09: Communication/Consultation with White Mesa Ute
Tribe
x X
PC-'10: Compliance with Other Federal and State Regulations x x
Oral Only Comments Received in May 4,2010 Public Meeting
PC-11: Adequate/lnadequate Notice of Public Hearing
Provided to General Public and to Members of the White Mesa
Ute Tribe
x x x
PC-12 Yellowcake Release from Stacks x
PC-13: Social Justice X
PC-14: Rules Should Be Changed/Use Current Rules When
Considering this License Amendment x x
PC-15: Economic Benefit and Employment Provided by Mill
Operations x x
PC-16: DUSA ls Responsible and Professional t x x x
PC,-17: Balance in Preserving Archaeological Resources x
PC-18: Health and Safety Are lmportant x
PC-19: Confidence in State and Federal Regulators x
PC-20: Release of Radioactive Materials to the Environment x
Page 4 of 4
a
SummaPublic Participation
June 14,2010
Revisions made to April 6, 2010 Draft DUSA's Radioactive Material License, No. UT lg0}47gare shown in Appendix C. Revisions made ro April 6, 2010 Draft DUSA,s Ground waterDischarge Permit No, UGW370004 are shown in Appendix D. These changes are discussed in
Section 3, below.
Page 5 of 5
Relnted Oral Comments
Public Participation SummarY
June 14,2010
Ms. Fields submitted the following comments in writing to the DRC on May 10, 2010. Other
commenters also provided oral comment on several of these same topics during the May 4,2010
public meeting. For details, see written comments in Appendix A and the transcript of oral
comments in Appendix B, below.
PC -0 1 ; Arc hae olo gic al Re s ourc e s
Written comments from Ms. Fields (Comment l.l, pp. l-2) stated the following (Appendix
A, pp. l-2): " 1. WHITE MESA ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1 .1. The construction of Celt 48 wilt impact a number of Archaeological Resources at the
Mill site and in the White Mesa Archaeological District. White Mesa is in an area adiacent
to and in the vicinity of extensive tribal holdings and an area rich in archaeological
resoyrces, which have been designated as significant and deserving of preservation. Many
Archaeological Resources on White Mesa have been found eligible for the National
Register, including resources that will be or have been impacted by activities associated
with the proposed license amendment.
The Licensee and the utah Division of Radiation Control (DRC) have not complied with
the requirements of License Condition 9.7, which states, in pertinent part:
'All disturbances associated with the proposed development will be completed in
compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (as amended) and its
implementing regulations, and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (as
amended) and its implementing regulations.'
Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act includes compliance with
Section 106. The Safery Evaluation Report (SER)faiLs to discuss how the Applicant
fuffilled its responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act (as amended)
and its implementing regulations, and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (as
amended) and its implementing regulations.
A contractor to the licensee has commenced excavation ofthe Archaeological Resources
at the Mill, with aiproval of the DRC. However, excavation has commenced without the
any Section 106 consultation. The excavation of the valuable Archaeological Rbsource on
W-hite Mesa has taken place without informing and consulting with nearby tribal
governments and tribal Historic Preservation Officers and without an opportunity for
public comment.
Further, the Licensee commenced activities that have impacts on the Archaeological
Resources and are the subject of License Condition 9.7 requirements prior to this
comment period and prior to the issuance of the license amendment and final
environmental ev aluation.
All activities that impact Archaeological Resources at the Mill should cease until DRC
initiates and completes a Section 106 consultation process, including consultation with
affected tribal governments or appropriate tribal representatives, The DRC should not
issue the license amendment without consulting with the Ute, Navajo, and other regional
Page 6 of 6
o
SummaryPublic Participation
June 14,2010
tribal Historic Preservation Officers regarding the destruction of irreplaceable historic
resources,
Further, the SER must include a discussion of how the Applicant has complied with the
provisions of License Condition 9.7."
In oral comments, Ms. Fields stated that archaeological excavation is currently taking place at
over ten archaeological sites and reported that most of the archaeological sites on Wtriie Mesa are
ancient pit houses (see Appendix B, p. 16). Ms. Fields reported that at the initial construction of
the White Mesa mill and facility, ancient artifacts were removed and placed in the University of
Utah or the Edges of the Cedars (museum). Ms. Fields complained, however, that none of these
artifacts have been exhibited, no studies have been conducted, and no results presented, and
asserted that although artifacts have been and will be removed, the sites have been and will be
destroyed by mill construction and expansion.
In oral comments, another O"rron (Toni Turk, Mayor of Blanding) indicated that all of the
artifacts that are recovered and recovered according to archeological procedure are made
available for further research at the Edge of the Cedars Museum (see Appendix B, p. l2). He alsoindicated that the [Blanding] Rotary Club recently received a detailed presentation tf recovery of
archaeological knowledge that Denison Mines has funded (see Topic pc-oq;
Communication/Consultation with White Mesa Ute Tribe, below, for further discussion).
Division Resnonse: Substantive Comment.
The Utah Radiation Control Act contains no requirement that mandates that the DRC address theevaluation or preservation of archaeological resources. However, the License Condition 9.7 does
address archaeological resources.
The Executive Secretary disagrees with the comment that under License Condition 9.7 the Utah
DRC must undertake Section 106 consultations pursuant to the National Historic preservation
Act, 16 U.S.C. $ 470f '. By its terms, Section 106 applies to actions by "any Federal agency"havingjurisdiction over a proposed "Federal or federally assisted undertaking". As the-"undertaking" at issue here is licensing of disposal Cell 48 by a State of Utah agency, Section
106 consultation is inapplicable. Nonetheless, the DRC has required the licensee to iake all
necessary and appropriate steps to identify and preserve cultural resources that may be
unavoidably disturbed during the construction of Cell 48.
Consistent with License Condition 9.7 , the licensee arranged for archaeological cultural research
studies of the Cell 4B area. As part of these studies, Abajo Archaeology developed "A Research
Design for Archaeological Data Recovery on Ten Sites in the White lvlesa Mill Cell 48 project
Area, San Juan County, Utah" (hereafter "Abajo Research Design"). The Abajo Research Design
describes archaeological test excavations of ten sites in the Cell 48 project area; provides a
research design for archaeological data recovery at those sites; and commits to thi preservation ofartifacts from the site.
3 Condition 9.7 in DUSA's Utah license is a remnant from its federal U.S, NRC mill license.
When the U.S. NRC delegated licensing of uranium mills to Utah in August 2004, Condition 9.7,
as drafted by the u.s. NRC, was imported into the Denison Mine's utah license.
PageT of7
Public Participation Summary
June 14,2010
The Executive Secretary sent the Abajo Research Design to the Utah State Historic Preservation
Office, who responded: "We concur that the approach outlined in the research design prepared by
Abajo Archaeology will mitigate adverse effects resulting from this project" (see Letter from Lori
Hunsaker, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer - Archaeology to Dane Finerfrock,
Director, Division of Radiation Control, dated Decembet 17,2009).
To fulfill the requirements of License Condition 9.7, DUSA:
. Is following the Abajo Research Design prior to beginning construction in any affected
cultural resource area identified in that document;
. As described in the Abajo Research Design, will require "Abajo Archaeology to submit
all artifacts and associated files from the project to the Edge of the Cedars Museum. All
artifacts will be housed in archival materials, including artifact bags and boxes as
stipulated by the Edge of the Cedars." Abajo Research Design atp.94.
. When excavation and preservation of cultural resources are complete, will submit a final
archaeology report to the Executive Secretary outlining the steps it took to comply with
the Abajo Research Design. It is anticipated that this report will be available by the end
of July 201 l.
See Letter from DUSA to the Executive Secretary, dated June 8, 2010 (DUSA 2010).
Various archaeological documents relating to the construction of Cell 48 are accessible to the
public on the DRC website. In addition, the public may request paper copies of these documents
and/or inspect files at the DRC, which contain current and historic archaeological documents
relating to the White Mesa Mil[ site.
Copies of DUSA, DRC, and SHPO correspondence, plans, and reports dogumenting the ongoing
archaeological investigations and recovery work are posted on the DRC website at
http://www.radiationcontrol.utah.govfuranium-Mills/IUC/cell4b/cultural-resources4b.htm.
PC-02; License Condition 9.7
A written comment from Ms. Fields (Comment 1.2) stated the following (Appendix A, p.2):
,,1.2 LICENSE CONDITION 9.7
The DRC is not proposing any changes to License Condition 9.7, which pertains to the
cultural resources at the Mill. License Condition 9.7 refers to a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOU) between the tJtah State Historical Preservation Officer (SHAPO), the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC), and Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. (aformer Mill owner/licensee). The MOU was
ratified on August 20, 1979, and amended on May i, 1983. The MOU should be amended
or replaced, since it does not reflecl the curuent situation at the Mill."
ln oral comment, Ms. Fields asserted the LC 9.7 should be stricken from the license and later that
the license condition should be reviewed and brought up to date (see Appendix B, p. 18).
Page 8 of 8
t
ummaryPublic Participation S
June 14,2010
Division Response: Non-substantive Comment.
DRC agrees there may be opportunities for improvement to the wording found in LC 9.7 . License
Condition 9.7 may be updated as part of the ongoing review of the license renewal application.
PC-03 ; Licensee Reporting Responsibilities
A written comment from Ms. Fields (Comment 2.1) stated the following (Appendix A, pp. 2-3):
"2. SAFETY EVALUATION RE?ORT (SER)
2,1 LICENSEE REPORTING RESPONSIBILITIES (SER, PAGE 2I)
The DRC should make the effluent monitoring reports, Semi-Annual Effiuent Reports and
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Reports and any additional ffiuent monitoring
information submitted by the licensee pursuqnt to License Condition I 1.2 available on the
DRC website in a timely manner."
Ms. Fields requested in oral comments that the DRC make the effluent monitoring reports and
any additional effluent monitoring information submitted by the licensee pursuant to LC I l 2
available on the DRC's website (see Appendix B, p. l8).
Division Resoonse: Non-substantive Comment.
The DRC is currently undergoing an initiative to make documents more readily and more rapidly
available to the public on the DRC's website. In the interim, interested parties can request
information that is not currently available on the DRC's website through the existing Utah
Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA) records request processes in Utah
Code Annotated Title 63G, Chapter 2 or inspect the files at the DRC.
PC-04; Long-Term Impacts
A written comment from Ms. Fields (Comment 2.3)a stated the following (Appendix A, pp. 3-4):
,,2.3 LONG TERM IMPACTS
ucA R313-24-3D: Environmental Analysis - Long Term Impacts, safety Evaluation,
states that, pursuant to UAC R313-24-3, a major license amendment should include
"consideration of the long-term impacts."'The sER discussion addresses long-term
impacts. However, the SER and the IJCA section do not define long-term and leave the
issue of long'term containment of the mill tailings and their associated emissions to be
addressed in ofuture Reclamation Plan. under current federal regulation (40 c.F.R.
sec. 192.32(BX 1)0s ), consideration of the technical requirementi for rong-term
containrnent of the tailings is limited to "one thousand years, to the extent reasonably
achievable, and, in any case, for at least 200 years." The sER (page 30) states that cell
48 has been designed to provide "reasonable assurance that radiological hazards will be
suitably controlled for 1,000 years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and in any case
for at lease 200 years.
a sic. Ms. Fields May 10, 2010 submittal did not contain any comment numbered 2.2.
Page 9 of 9
Public Participation Summary
June 14,2010
"So, we have "reasonable assurance" to the extent that suitable control is "reasonably
achievable." What does this vague language mean over the long-term? The public, the
licensee, and the DRC do not really know.
"The tailings will remain on White Mesa in perpetuity, that is, forever. Therefore impacts
from 200 to 1,000 years are short-term impacts, not long-term impacts, given the time
that the tailings will continue to release radon and will be a radioactive and hazardous
mateial requiring physical and regulatory controlfor as long as there are individuals
and entities capable of exercising that control.
" Eventually the liners will break down, eventually the tailings cover will erode, and
eventually the tailings and the associated radioactive and non-radioactive contaminants
will disperse into the air, water, and soils.
"Any evaluation of the long-term impacts of the proposed licensing action must address
the potential impacts ofthe dispersion ofthe tailingsfrom naturalforces over the
thousands and millions of years that the tailings will remain in place."
t 40 cFR Sec. 192.32(B)( 1)(i).
( 1 ) Disposal areas shall each comply with the closure performance standard in Sec. 264. I I I of this chapter
with respect to nonradiological hazards and shaLl be designed to provide reasonable assurance ofcontrol of
radiological hazards to (i) Be effective for one thousand years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and, in
any case, for at least 200 years, and, (ii) Limit releases of radon-222 from uranium byproduct moterials to
the atmosphere so as lo not exceed an averageV\release rate of20 picocuries per square meter per second
(pCi/m2s).
V\ I[is average shall apply to the entire surface of each disposal area over periods of at least one year, but
short compared to 100 years. Radon will come from both uranium byproduct materials and from covering
materials. Radon emissions from covering materiaLs should be estimated as part of developing a closure plan
for each site. The standard, however, applies only to emissions from uranium byproduct materials to the
atmosphere."
ln oral comments, Ms. Fields asserted that the DRC is required to prepare a Safety Evaluation
Report (SER) for a major license amendment under the Atomic Energy Act (see Appendix B, pp.
2l-22). The person also observed that the Atomic Energy Act has specific requirements for
agreement states and that the State of Utah is an agreement state, through which the federal
government has given the State of Utah the responsibility for regulating uranium mills within
Utah. The commenter observed that SER states that Cell 48 has been designed to provide
reasonable assurance that radiological hazards will be suitably controlled for 1,000 years to the
extent reasonably achievable, and in any case, for at least 200 years. The person the expressed the
common belief that although the tailings will remain in perpetuity, the containment features and
system will eventually degrade to allow radioactive and non-radioactive contaminants to be
released into the environment. This person then asserted that DRC should consider the
performance of the tailings impoundments for up to 100,000 years.
Division Response: Substantive Comment.
The DRC reviews license applications for tailings management and tailings reclarnation facilities
in accordance with existing established regulations and rules, including UAC R313-24, as
mentioned in the comment. The set of standards established for stabilization of reclaimed tailings
Page 10 of 10
Public Participation S
June 14,2010
a
ummary
management cells that are applicable to the DUSA White Mesa Mill Facility is prescribed by the
NRC in l0 CFR 40, including Criterion 6(l), of rhose regulations:
"ln disposing ofwaste byproduct material, licensees shall place an earthen cover (or
approved alternative) over tailings or wastes at the end of milling operations and shall
close the waste disposal area in accordance with a design which provides reasonable
assurance of control of radiological hazards to (i) be effective for 1,000 years, to the
extent reasonably achievable, and, in any case, for at least 200 years, and (ii) limit
releases of radon-222 from uranium byproduct materials, and radon-220 from thorium
byproduct materials, to the atmosphere so as not to exceed an average release rate of20
picocuries per squ(tre meter per second (pCi/m2s) to the extent practicable throughout
the effective design life determined pursuant to ( t )(i) of this Criterion. In computing
required tailings cover thicknesses, moisture in soils in exceSs of amounts found normally
in similar soils in similar circumstances may not be considered. Direct garnma exposure
from the tailings or wastes should be reduced to background levels. fhi fficts oj rny
thin synthetic layer may not be taken into account in determining the caliulated radon
exhalation level. If non-soil materials are proposed as cover materials, it must be
demonstrated that these materials will not crack or degrade by dffirential settlement,
weathering, or other mechanism, over long-term intervals.,'
The regulatory basis for the NRC environmental standards was provided by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in documents published in 40 CFR Part t9Z.Th; NRC adopted theseenvironmental standards in the Federal Register in 1983. In the Federal Register Notice
describing the NRC basis for adopting these standards under 40 CFR pafi IgZ (',Environmental
Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings at Licensed Commercial processing Sites,,,
Proposed Rule, published in Federal Register 48(84):19584-19603, Aprit29,l9g3), EpA nores(ibid., p' 19,597) that the selected design alternative (Alternative D - stabilization to be designed
to be effective for 1,000 years, to the extent practicable, or, in any case [designed to be effeciive]for at Ieast 200 years) "will provide stability against erosion and casual intruiion for misuse formuch longer than 1,000 years" except for "those few piles that are susceptible to flood damage,"which "would be protected for at least 200 years, and are unlikely to sufier real damage for muchlonger." EPA also identifies that casual intrusion by man is limited by thick and hard-io-penetrate
covers' and that the main design issue is protection against natural forces (wind and surface water
erosion, and of the possibility of flood damage). They indicate that wind and surface-water
erosion are well-understood and predictable, and are easily inhibited through the use of rock or, in
some cases, vegetative surface stabilization.
When reviewing documents submitted by Licensees that relate to construction, operations, andreclamation activities that are proposed to be conducted at the White Mesa Mill Facility with
respect to the potential for these activities to cause long-term environmental impacts, the DRC
must consider and has considered requirements contained in the above set of NRC standards.
Interested parties, should they choose to do so, have the option of requesting that changes to
existing rules and statutes be considered and implemented. Such requests would need to be
pursued through established formal rule-making requests to the Utah Radiation Control Board
and/or to the NRC, or by a State or Federal legislative processes.
Pagellofll
Public Participation SummarY
June 14,2010
PC-05; Permanent Isolation without Ongoing Maintenance
A written comment from Ms. Fields (Comment 2.4) stated the following (Appendix A, p.4):
,,2.4 PERMANENT ISOLATION WITHOUT ONGOING MAINTENANCE (SER, PAGE
24)
l0 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion l, states that tailings should be disposed of in a
manner that no active maintenance is required to preserve conditions of the site.
"There is no doubt that over the years, active maintenance will be required to preserve
conditions of the site. The Department of Energy (DOE) has already discovered that
active maintenance is required at some of the uranium mill sites that have been reclaimed
and that DOE have responsibility for, due to erosion. The DOE is actively looking at
dffirent cover and tailings design systems because of the problems they have
encountered at these sites.
"No matter what the design is, eventually the cover, tailings, and White Mesa itself, will
erode, as demonstrated by the geological landscape in the region. Any claim to continued
long-term isolation of the tailings--without active maintenance--via a man-made design is
not supportable.
"The DRC should consult with the DOE and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and
take into consideration recent studies and data regarding the ffictiveness of tailings
system designs and materials to update the final cover design and materials requirements
in order to achieve the mqximum long-term isoLation of the tailings with minimal
maintenance. The DRC should not mislead the public and licensee into thinking that
isolation of the tailings for I ,000 and for the long-term future can take place without
active maintenance."
Ms. Fields also expressed doubt in oral comments presented at the Public Hearing that tailings
could be isolated without relying on ongoing maintenance and recommended that DRC should
consult with NRC and Department of Energy to identify realistic long-term maintenance
scenarios and to take advantage of new data and information that is being generated (see
Appendix B,pp.23-24).
Division Resoonse: Substantive Comment.
We agree with the comment that the NRC rules mandate uranium mill tailings facilities be
designed and constructed such that no ongoing maintenance is required (10 CFR 40, Appendix A,
Criterion 1). As mentioned above, the 200 to 1000-year engineering design / stability standard is
found in the NRC rules (10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6). Both of these requirements are
adopted in the corresponding Utah regulations (see UAC R313-24-4). Upon closure of the
faciiity, and completi,on of certain other requirements, the site will be transferred to the DOE who
will then take control and possession of the tailings site (see 10 CFR 40.28). Under this
ownership, the federal government will provide any long-term maintenance required.
The DUSA reclamation plan is currently under review by the DRC as a part of the license
renewal process. During this review, the DRC will consider available information on the
performince of other completed final cover systems, including covers constructed at DOE
ieclamation sites (e.g., U.S. DOE Uranium Mill Tailings Reclamation Act Project sites and other
Page 12 of 12
a
SummaryPublic Participation
June 14,2010
sites), and published NRC guidance documents relating to the final capping and closure ofuraligm mill tailings impoundments, uranium tailings piles, etc..., foiiong-term stabilization,including, but not limited to, NUREG-1623 (NRC 2oo2), and documents referenced therein, andother published technical documents and reports that contain updated information regarding thedesign and expected longer-term performance effectiveness of final closure .ou"r ryit"*..
See also the response regarding established design requirements and standards provided in regardto the previous commenr (Topic PC-04).
PC-06: Impacts of Dewatering of the Taitings Cell
A written comment from Ms. Fields (Comment 2.5) stated the following (Appendix A, pp.4-5):
,,2,5 IMPACTS OF DEWATERING OF THE TAILINGS CELL (SER, PAGES 25_26)
The discussion of the permanent isolation without ongoing maintenance (10 CFR part
40, Appendix A, Criterion I ) and the Reclamation Plan refer to the dewartering of thetailings cell afier the operational life of the cetl. However, there is minimal diicissionabout two of the primary problems encountered at uranium mills once operation has
ceased and cell dewatering commences. Once dewatering commences, the result is an
increase in the release of radon from the cell and an increase in windblown tailings. The
SER mentions the possibility of the use of "platform fiI|," but provides little information
and analysis of the use of fill or other means to minimize the emission of radin,
hazardous and radioactive particulates to the atmosphere and the enviionment.
"The SER should discuss in more detail the impacts of celt dewatering on the emission of
radon and other gases and hazardous and radioactive particulates aid how these
impacts will be mitigated during the estimated 5.5 years between the cessation of celloperation and the placement of an interim and final cover.,,
In addition to written comments dealing with release from the facility during dewater following
cessation of milling operations, one person (Bradley Angel) provided un o.ull comment "*prer.1ngconcem for the potential windblown tailings during periods of high winds (see Appendix b, p.
26).
Division Response: Substantive Comment,
The applicant (DUSA) is required, on a yearly basis, to monitor for radon emissions from existingtailings cells. Applicable EPA regulations are specified in 40 CFR part 61, Subpart W, NationalEmissions Standards for Radon Emissions from Operating Mill Tailings, with tichnicalprocedures in Appendix B. These standards are a subset o1the National Emission Standards forHazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs). According to subsecti on 61.252, Standard, (a) radon-222
emissions to ambient air from an existing uranium mi-ll tailing pile shall not exceed an average of20 picoCuries per square meter per second (20 pCi/m2-s) for each pile or region (emphasis
added). The term "existing" tailings pile is defined as a cell that wis in exisience on br beforeDecember 15, 1989 [see 40 cFR 61.251(d)]. cell 48 does not meet this requirement.
It is also important to note EPA's intent in 40 CFR 61 Subpart W, wherein the 20 pCi/mzlsec airquality standard was applied to "existing" tailings cells, and new design, constructlon, andoperation standards applied to "newo'tailings cells (built after December 15, 1989). For the,,new',
Page 13 of 13
Public Participation SummarY
June 14,2010
tailings cells, the operator was required to design, construct and operate the cells under one of two
practices:
r)conduct phased tailings disposal in a cell area that is less than 40 acres, and have no more
than twotailings impoundments in operation at any one time (including "existing"
impoundments), or
continuous disposal of tailings that are dewatered and immediately disposed of with no
more than 10 acres uncovered at any time, in accordance with the requirements of 40
CFR 192.32(a), as determined by the NRC.
ln the case of DUSA, the company has elected to operate Cells 4,{ and 48 under Option
With regard to NESHAPs, Subsection 61.253, Determining Compliance, states that, "Compliance
with the emission standard in this subpart shall be determined annually through the use of Method
l l5 of Appendix B." This monitoring is performed by DUSA on (ibid., Section 2.1.2): 1) water
saturated tailings (or beaches), and2) dry top surface areas'
The results of the annual radon measurements are reviewed and facility compliance status is
determined by the Utah Division of Air Quality (DAQ). While informal review of this data is
done by DRC staff, the DRC does not have authority to enforce DAQ / NESHAPs requirements.
However, in the event that DAQ determined there to be non-compliance with NESHAPs
requirements, DUSA could pursue more than one alternative to control radon emissions,
inCluding, but not limited to: construction of a temporary cover soil, or the final radon barrier.
Certainly, any radon barrier construction is subject to the DRC regulations, and to the
requirementsfound in License Condition 9.11 and the approved Reclamation Plan. During such
construction, DRC staff would be involved in construction inspections, and review of any As-
Built or Closure Report.
Historic DUSA radon emission rate data collected from tailings management Cells 2 and 3 at the
White Mesa Facility could be considered representative of expected future radon emission rates
from proposed Celt 48. The average radon flux measured for the covered Cell 2 area during 2009
was ti.Z^pci/m2 per second. This assumption is reasonable, given the similarity of tailings
materialsind operations. The areas (surface size) measured atop Cell 3 will be variable during
tailings management operations as a result of operations and therefore measured radon emission
rates may vary, depending on the time of measurement. Radon emission rates obtained during
ZOO7,Zm1 and 2009, have been reported by DUSA for both exposed ("beach") and soil-covered
tailings materials in "existing" Cell 2 and 3 (at the top of the interim cover soil layer placed over
the tailings). Reported average radon emission rates for the soil-cover areas measured during the
2007 toZbOl perioA are 13.9,5.5, and 4.5 pCrlmz per second, respectively. Average emission
rates reported for the beach areas measured in 2007 ,2008, and 2009, are 6.7 , 12.2, and 19. I
pCi/m2 per second. The geometric mean radon emission rate for the 2007-2009 monitoring period
was q.6^5 pCi/m2 per second for the "soil cover" areas, and 7.Ol pCilmz per second for the beach
areas (see the annual NESHAPs Radon Flux Measurement Program reports prepared by Tellco
Environmental. All of these DUSA measured concentrations are compliant with the NESHAPs
standard (20 pCi/m2lsec). An example Annual NESHAPs report is the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 2009 Radon Flux Measurement Program White Mesa
Millsite Reporr, prepared by Tellco Environmental, submitted to DUSA on February 17,2OlO
(Tellco Environmental 2010).
2)
Page 14 of 14
o
ummaryPublic Participation S
June 14,2010
On the question of radioactive particulates, the site is monitored on a continuous basis at five (5)
monitoring stations around the site. These monitoring stations monitor all emissions releasedfrom the site including the tailings impoundments.
Radioactive particulate monitoring results can be found in Semi-Annual Effluent Monitoring
Reports and in the annual NESHAPs Radon Flux Measurement Program reports). Radonmonitoring at the restricted area (RA) boundary was discontinued in 1995, ifte. NRC approval(see August 29,2009 DUSA report, p. 5). In lieu of actual radon measurements at the RA
boundary, the NRC allowed DUSA to determine radon concentrations in air with a calculation
method (ibid.). This same approach is also allowed under Part l5 of the Utah Radiation Control
Regulations [see UAC R3 1 3- I 5-302(Z)(a)).
It is also worth noting that the direct measurement of the radon flux from uranium tailings is not
required by current guidance from the Nuclear Regulatory commission (NRC). NRC
requirements are presented in Regulatory Guide 4.14, Revision l, Radiological Efiluent and
Environmental Monitoring at Uranium Mills, April 25, 1980 (NRC 1980) ind NfjRfC-tOZO
Standard Review Planfor the Review of a Reclamation Planfor Mill Tailings Sites [Jnder Title IIof the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Acl (NRC 2000). The regulatory guide calls forpre-operational radon flux measurements to establish background flux, but Ooejnot require
operational flux measurements in this guide. Instead, measurements are required at theind of the
disposal cell's operational life, as it is prepared for closure, and after the radon barrier is installed.
PC-07; Off Site Measuring Devices
A written comment from Ms. Fields (Comment 2.6) stated the following (Appendix A, p. 5):
,,2.6 OFF SITE MEASURING DEVICES
The February 12, 2010, letter to Dave Frydenlund, DUSA, from Senes Consultants Ltd.,states (page 2): 'Due to the inaccuracy of the radon measurement devices the mill is not
required to sample for environmental radon under its license..
The Application for Cell 48 and the SER fail to provi,de supportive documentation
regarding vaious types of radon measuring devices and their supposed "inaccuracy" tojustify the failure to measure environmental radon from Cell 4 B and other radon sources
at the Mill. This would include on- and offsite monitoring of radon.
The SER should include a full iustification, with supporting documentation, of the on-
and offsite radionuclide monitoring programs, including monitoring of radin. If DUSA
is not required to sample for environmental ra.don and other radioaitiie releasis on- andoffsite, the public must know why and have supporting technical bases.,,
Division Resoonse: Substantive Comment.
Radon effluent from the White Mesa Mill Site is calculated and not directly measured. This is in
compliance with R313-15-302(2)(a), and was authorized by the NRC. The explanation is
presented in the Semi-Annual Effluent Monitoring Reports as follows (e.g., see DUSA 2OO9,p.
5):
"Due to unavailability monitoring equipment to detect the new 10 CFR 20 standard, and
with the approval of the NRC, Radon-222 monitoring at BHV stations was discontinued
Page 15 of 15
Public Participation SummarY
June 14,2010
in 1995. Instead, Denison demonstrates compliance with these limits and the
requirements of R3 I 3- I 5-501 by calculation, authorized by the NRC and as contemplated
by'R3l3- l5-302(2)(a)......This calculation is performed by use of the MILDOS code for
estimating environmental radiation doses for uranium recovery operations (Strenge and
Bender t98l) and more recently in 2003 by use of the updated MILDOS AREA code
(Argonne tggs). The analysis under both the MILDOS and MILDOS AREA codes
orri*", the Mill to be processing high grade Arizona Strip ores at full capacity, and
calculates the concentrations of radioactive dust and radon at individual receptor
locations around the Mill."
The MILDOS and MILDOS AREA codes calculate the combined Total Effective Dose
Equivalent ("TEDE") from all relevant pathways, including both air particulate and radon, at a
number of locations including the nearest residence (he individual likely to receive the highest
dose from the licensed operation), approximately 1.6 miles north of the Mill. These calculations
reveal projected doses to the individual likely to receive the highest dose from the licensed
operationi to be well below the 100 mrem regulatory limit in R313-15-301(l)(a) for all pathways,
including air particulate and radon as set out in R313-15-101(4). MILDOS AREA modeling was
recently;onducted in support of the Mill's 2007 License Renewal Application, utilizing the
MILDOS-AREA code (Version 2.20P), to estimate the dose commitments at various receptor
locations for processing of Colorado Plateau ore (0.25Va U:Oa and 1.57o Y z}s) and Arizona Strip
ore (0.637Vo UrOr). The process rate was assumed to be at full capacity of 730,000 tons per year
(an average of 2,000 tons per day) with an average uranium recovery yield of 94Vo.That
modeling showed a TEDE of 2 mrem per year at the nearest resident (3 mrem per year at the
nearest potential residence, being the location of BHV-l at the northem property boundary of the
Uill site), which included the dose from all radionuclide sources, including radon. The modeled
dose from radon itself was therefore a fraction of TEDE and well within regulatory limits'"
The January 1 through June 30, 2009 results can be found in the DUSA Semi-Annual Effluent
Monitoring Report dated Augus t 29, 2009 (DUSA 2009).
PC-08; Effluent Control During Operations
A written comment from Ms. Fields stated the following (Appendix A, p.
"2.7 EFFLIIENT CONTROL DURING OPERATIONS (SER, PACES 59 - 60)
The SER discusses compliance with 10 C.F.R. 40, Appendix A, Criterion 8, with respect
radioactive effluents from the mill and tailings impoundment. Criterion 8 includes the
requirement:
"'Milling operations producing or involving thorium byproduct material must be
conducted in such a manner as to provide reasonable assurance that the annual dose
equivalent does not exceed 25 millirems to the whole body, 75 millirems to the thyroid,
and 25 millirems to any other organ of any member of the public as a resuh of exposures
to the planned discharge of radioactive materials, radon-220 and its daughters excepted,
to the general environment.'
"The SER fails to discuss how compliance with the above requirement for exposures to
the public witl be measured and compliance will be assured with respect the release of
the discharge of radioactive materials from Cell 48 and other sources at the mill during
the operation ofthe tailings cell.
Page 16 of 16
o
ummaryPublic Participation S
June 14,2010
"The SER should explain exactly how the Applicant will demonstrate compliance with
Criterion I with respect the emissionfrom Cell 48."
Division Response: Non-substantive Comment.
The cited requirement on radioactive effluents from the mill and tailings impoundment applies to
facilities that produce thorium metal or beneficiate thorium ores, and as a result dispose oi
thorium byproduct materials. Because the White Mesa Uranium Mill Facility does not produce
thorium, the cited requirements do not apply. No comparable requirement exists that applies to
uranium milling or uranium byproduct disposal facilities.
PC-09; Communication/Consuhation with White Mesa Ute Tribe
One person (Toni Turk) reported orally that the [Blanding] Rotary Club recently received a
detailed presentation of recovery of archaeological knowledge that Denison Mines has funded.
The presentation reported that the database of understanding of the cultures that have lived here
anciently has been significantly expanded and that those artifacts that are recovered according to
archaeological procedure are made available for further research at the Edge of the Cedars
Museum.
One person (Ms. Fields) orally expressed a belief that the failure of the Division of Radiation
Control and the failure of the Utah Historical Society to consult with the White Mesa Ute and the
Ute Mountain tribal governments and the Navajo tribal historic preservation [under Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Actl is unacceptable and that the Division of Radiation
Control must consult with these entities before they approve the proposed license amendment
(see Appendix B, pp. l7-18).
In written comments (Appendix A, p. 2), Ms. Fields asserted that excavation of valuable
archaeological resources on White Mesa has taken place without informing and consulting with
nearby tribal governments and tribal Historic Preservation Officers and without an opporiniry
for public comment.
One person (Toni Turk) stated in oral comments that one person who has worked very closely
with the White Mesa Utes "is very computer literate and is able to receive and disperie all
communications that pertain to that community and, to [his] knowledge, [she] does that..." (see
Appendix B, pp. 1l-12).
Diyision Response: Substantive Comment.
DUSA, SHPO, and DRC have addressed the issues involving preservation of archaeological
resources as described in DRC's response to Topic pC-01, above.
PC-10; Compliance with Other Federal and State Regulations
A written comment from Ms. Fields (Comment 2.8) stated the following (Appendix A, pp. 5-6):
,,2.8 COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE REQUIREMENTS
The SER does not discuss required compliance with other state andfederal regulationsprior to the commencement of construction of Cell 4 B. This would include compliance
with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subpart A. Section 61.07 requires that DUSA
Page 17 of 17
Public Participation Summary
June 14,2010
submit an application to the utah Division of Air Quality (DAQ) for Cell 48 as a new 40
C.F.R. Part 61, Subpart W regulated source and receive an approval from the DAQ,
pursuant to Section 61,08. Recently, DIJSA was issued a Notice of Violarion by the
Environmental Protection Agency for failure to comply with the Subpart A
application/approval process for the Arizona I uranium mine. Therefore, the DRC should
remind DUSA of their Part 6l responsibilities. Additionally, DUSA may be required to
amend their air quality permit for the non-radioactive emissions from the uranium mill.
The White Mesa license should contain a condition that states that DUSA must comply
with all applicable federal and state regulqtions and statutes and a license condition that
states that DLISA cannot commence construction of Cell 48 until DUSA receives the
required approval as a new 40 C.F.R. Subpart W regulated source from the DAQ."
In oral comments, one person (Bradley Angel) claimed that the State of Utah has an obligation to
comply with Federal requirements related to the preservation of ancient, potentially ceremonial
and/or culturally significant site since it is making consideration under federal rules. He sated that
the State is delegated authority from the federal government to administer this regulatory program
(see Appendix B, pp. 9-10).
Division Resoonse: Non-substantive Comment.
The regulations cited deal with the EPA NESHAPs program. With respect to air quality issues,
the DRC operates within the bounds prescribed by the Utah Radiation Control Act (Utah Code
Annotated IUCAI Title 19 Chapter 3) and rules promulgated thereunder. The DRC is not
authorized to enforce issues that fall into the domain of the Utah Division of Air Quality (DAO.
Rather DAQ bears this responsibility.
Nonetheless, in a submittal dated April 13, 2010, DUSA made application to DAQ for an
amendment to their existing Air Quality Order for the construction of Cell 48. For convenience
of the public, a link has been created on the following DRC webpage to direct a reader to this
application: http://www.radiationcontrol.utah.gov/Uranium Mills/index.htm,
With regard to Mr. Angel's oral comments about cultural resources, please refer to the DRC
response to Topic PC-O1, above.
Page 18 of 18
O
SummaryPublic Participation
June 14,2010
Section 2. Oral Onlv Comments from Public Hearins.Held Mqv 4.2010 in Blandine. Unh
At the public hearing held in Blanding, Utah on May 4,2010 several persons made ora.l
comments. These commenters and the topics of their comments are summarized in Table 1. A
copy of the transcript from the meeting is found in Appendix B, below. Rather than restating each
oral comment verbatim, the DRC has summarized these comments with a concise statement that
draws all similar comments together.
PC-11; Notice of Public Hearing
Three persons (Bradley Angel, Toni Turk, and Joe Lyman) commented about the process by
which DRC provides notification of public hearing.
One person (Bradley Angel) complained that unless affirmatively signing up for the DRCs
ListServ web page, a person does not received notices. He also asserted that many White Basin
Ute community members do not have regular access to the internet and asserted that the people
most affected by the proposed licensing action are not informed (see Appendix B, p. g).
Another person (Joe Lyman) stated the he ". . . stumbled into finding out this hearing was
happening . . . ." and he had sent out an e-mail to a few people, hoping they would aitend lseeAppendix B, p. l9).
As described above (under PC-09, Communication"/Consultation with White Mesa Ute Tribe),Toni Turk offered a different opinion, stating that at least one person has worked very closelywith the White Mesa Utes and is very computer literate, as well as able to receive and disperse all
communications that pertain to that community.
Division Response: Non-substantive Comment.
DRC followed applicable administrative requirements contained in Utah Administrative Code
Rule 313-17-2 providing public notice of the Public Hearing held in Blanding, Utah on May 4,
2010. The Public Notice was published in the Deseret Morning Nelrs and the Salt lnke Tibune(April 7, 2010 Original Notice; April 9, 2010 Addendum Notice), and rhe Blue Mountain
Panorama, a Blanding paper (April 7,2010 OriginalNotice; April 14, 2010 Addendum Notice).
PC-12; Release of Yellowcake from Stacks
One person (Bradley Angel) asked when was the last time DRC assessed the release of
yellowcake (UrOa) from stacks at the White Mesa mill and when were the people of White Mesa
last informed about such releases (see Appendix B, p. 8).
Division Response: Substantive Comment.
DUSA conducts periodic monitoring of stack emissions at the White Mesa Facility in accordance
with guidance provided in NRC Regulatory Guide 4.14, Rev. I (NRC 1980). Emissions from air
emission sources (stacks) that involve processes that include effluent control equipment with
subsequent emission (i.e., the north yellowcake dryer and yellow cake dryer baghouse) are the
subject of quarterly and/or semi-annual monitoring by DUSA. Stack air samples are analyzed for
natural uranium, radium 226, thorium 230, and lead 210.
Page 19 of 19
Public Participation Summary
June 14,2010
Stack monitoring results are reported in the Semi-Annual Effluent Monitoring Reports. These
reports are available to the public upon request under GRAMA. A form for this purpose is
provided on the DRC website at: http://www.radiationcontrol.utah.gov/forms.htm.
PC-13; Social Justice
One person (Bradley Angel) believed that the state is violating the United States Civil Rights Act,
Title VI because "[a]s a recipient of federal funding, you are prohibited from taking any actions
that would have discriminatory or disproportionate impact on low income people of color, like
the White Mesa Ute people..." (see Appendix B, p. l0).
Division Response: Non-substantive Comment.
The Executive Secretary disagrees with the commenter's opinion that DRC's actions are
discriminatory.
PC-14; Rules Should Be Changed
One person (Chris Webb) reported his experience during eight years serving as a member of the
[Jtah State Drinking Water Board (see Appendix B, p. 28-29). He told that people frequently
argue that the rules need to change and need to be tougher because undesirable things (what ifs)
might occur. This commenter stated, however, that the proposal being considered today should be
judged on the rules that are in place today and encouraged the state to judge proposal by today's
rules, not on hopes for future changes in the rules.
Division Response: Non-substantive Comment.
Comment noted. No response required.
PC-15; Economic Benejit and Employment Provided by Milt Operations
Two persons mentioned the large economic effect the White Mesa uranium mill has on the
surrounding area. One person (Toni Turk) stated that the uranium mill is a major employer of the
White Mesa [Jte community and works in collaboration with Denison Mines for that employment
(see Appendix B, p. I I ). Mn Turk stated that San Juan County is the most impoverished county in
the state of Utah and somewhere between the \th and the l5th most impoverished county in the
United States (see Appendix B, p. l3). The person expressed the opinion that not supporting one
of the main economic engines of the local economy that supports a large portion of our
indigenous peoples and provides their Livelihoods would be shortsighted. The person asserted
that opposing this proposal would fall short of being concerned for the lifu, liberry, pursuit of
happiness of the population that reside here.
Another person (Joe Lyman) stated that employment provided by the White Mesa mill is critical
(see Appendix B, p. 20). This person asserted that the mill provides employment to the very
people that some say shouLd be protected from the mill. He added that not having that
employment could be devastating to the entire area.
Division Response: Non-substantive Comments.
Comments noted. No response required.
Page20 of 20
a
Summ aryPublic Participation
June 14,2010
PC-16; DUSA is Responsible and Professional
One commenter (Toni Turk) noted that there is a place for regulatory oversight, that is, to ensure
that development processes are appropriate and timely and that the necessary adjustments are
madeastheyareiudgedtobeneeded(seeAppendixB,pp. l2-13).Thispersonalsoexpressedthe
opinion that Denison Mines is goodfor the local community and area, that White Mesa
management are being good neighbors, and that they are being good contributors to the local
economy.
One person (Chris Webb, Blanding City Manager) stated that he had have been associated with
the mill most of his lift (see Appendix B, p. t 3). He reported watching the mill propose dffirent
actions to promote viability of the milling operations. He also reported that proposals have
raised questions in the minds not only of Blanding citizens but of other people in the region and
thqt people get emotionally involved, arguing their love for the area ord th, surroundiigs and
expressing concern abut what any proposal might do. The person expressed his beliefthat
emotion should not be the only factor but that sciences also be considered, Mr. Webb stated his
experience in dealing with the mill over many years, that they are a very good steward, partner,
and community member (see Appendix B, p.'t 5).
One person (Joe Lyman) reported his impression that by and large White Mesa management has
been responsible with what they've done at the mitl site (see Appendix B, p, l9). This person
reported seeing opposition to activity at the mill that has not been well founded This person
expressed his belief that he represented many people who, if they were able to come and speak,
would support the mill (see Appendix B, pp. l9-21),
Division Response: Non-substantive Comment.
Comments noted. No responses required.
PC-17; Balance in Preserving Archaeolngical Resources
One person (Bradley Angel) expressed concern and opposition to the proposed construction
because, it was argued, with the blessing of the state of Utah, the company is destroying
ceremonial, potential ceremonial, and well-documented culturally signfficant sites (see Appendix
B, pp. 9-10). It was stated that the desecration and absolute destruction of culturally signfficant
ancient sites could involve burials (not just some ancient artifact for a museum). These are part
of the living culture of the people here. Agency decisions and actions would help desecrate these
sites, continue to devastate the culture ofthe native peoples ofthis area, and we believe violate
the Civil Rights Act.
Diyision Response: Substantive Comment.
Please refer to the DRC's response to Topic pC-O1 above.
PC-18; Health and Safety Are Important
One person (Chris Webb) commented that, as a community, Blanding had approached the NRC
asking for factual information about health and threats to lift and safety threats (see Appendix B,
pp. l4-15). He stated that health and lift safety of our citizens is more important than any
economic development, although, economic development is an important part of a community, if
it can be done right. He expressed amazement at learning what was being done and all the
Page2l of2l
Public Participation Summary
June 14,2010
regulations in place to ensure public safety. The person reported that, as the NRC explained the
science and regulations, he became supportive of the Ilicensing and regulatory] processes and
became confident that those processes can continue if the regulations were followed.
Division Response: Non-substantive Comment.
Comment noted. No response required.
PC-19; Confidence in State and Fetderal Regulators
One person (Bradtey Anget) asserted that DRC and other state agencies consistently fail to
as.re.rs the impacts of actual hazards that are documented, as well as potential future hazards to
the health and environment and cultural resources of this area (see Appendix B, p. 8-9).
One commenter (Toni Turk) noted that there is a place for regulatory oversight, that is, to ensure
that development processes are appropriate and timely and that the necessary adiustments are
made as they are iudged to be needed (see Appendix B, pp. l2-l j).
Division Response: Non-substantive Comment.
DUSA is required to conduct environmental monitoring of air, surface water, groundwater
resources and mill and site-related effluent emissions and submit results of such monitoring
activities to the DRC on an ongoing, regular basis. These reports are available to the public upon
request under GRAMA and are also available at the DRC office in Salt Lake City, Utah. The
DRC conducts public hearings, such as the May 4,2010 Public Hearing in Blanding, to apprise
affected communities of planned activities at the White Mesa Mill Facility and to acquire public
input and encourage information exchange. Through reviews associated with License and
Groundwater Discharge Permit modifications such as this one, the DRC evaluates the potential
impacts of site activities on human health and the environment, including cultural resources.
Please also refer to DRC's responses in this Public Participation Summary to other public
comments received.
PC-20; Release of Radioactive Materials to the Environment
One person(Bradley Angel) asked whether the DRC is aware of any time that radioactive
materials associated with this facility ended up not contained, such as by the highway (see
Appendix B, p.26).
Another person (Chris Webb) assured that the monitoring is happening and that the state ensures
the monitoring takes place (see Appendix B, p. 29).
Division Response: Substantive Comment.
prior to the DRC becoming an Agreement State in August, 2004, a radiologic survey of the entry
road to the mill and adjoining soils (borrow pit areas) was performed by DRC staff.. These
informal surveys found some soil activity at levels above background concentration. These
findings were communicated to DUSA management, and shortly thereafter, DUSA excavated the
soil in question and placed it on the ore storage pad (inside the restricted area) for processing.
Annual soil sampling and analysis is performed during the third quarter of each year at several
locations both inside and outside the restricted area. The result of this work is provided to DRC in
semi-annual effluent monitoring reports by DUSA.
PageZ2 of 22
o
SummaPublic Participation
June 14,2010
Section 3. Sundm Chanses to Permit and Lirense
Selected, minor changes have been made to the Radioactive Materials License and the
Groundwater Discharge Permit after the Public Comment period ended. These changes are not
related to comments received during the Public Comment period, and are not substantive in
nature, but instead represent a simple wording change to correct a typographical error or slight
changes to reporting or compliance date or deadline to account for changes in the timetables for
documents to be submitted by DUSA for DRC review. These changes include the following:
1. License Condition 9.6 * The abbreviation "SOPs" for "standard operating procedures"
was added to the first sentence of this License Condition as follows: "standard operating
procedures (SOPs) shall be established and followed for all operational process activities
involving radioactive materials that are handled, processed, or stored."
2. License Condition 9.11 - The deadline for submittal of the revised Reclamation Plan
(Rev. 3.2) has been changed from June 1, 2010 to June 30, 2010.
3. License Condition 11,7.8(3) - In order to correct a typographical error, wording has been
changed to the following. "Review of the data and an analysis shall be performed and
certified by a Utah Licensed Professional Engineer and submitted ,..',
4. License Condition 12.3 - The reporting deadline for the ATER (Annual Technical
Evaluation Report) has been changed from September 1" of each year to November 15'h
of each year.
5. Permit Part I.E.10(a) - Minor typographical correction (removal of extra comma).
Page 23 of 23
Public Participation Summary
June 14,2010
References Cited
Denison Mines (USA) Corp (DUSA) 2009. "State of Utah Radioactive Material License No.
UTl900479 White Mesa Mill, Blanding, Utah Semi-Annual Effluent Monitoring Report for
Period January 1,2009 through June 30, 2009", company compliance report, August 29,2009,
169 pp.
Denison Mines (USA) Corp (DUSA) 2010. Letter from Jo Ann Tischler of DUSA to Dane L.
Finerfrock, Executive Director, Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Radiation Control
Division, "License Condition Number 9.7 - Cell 48 Archeological Clearance", June 8, 2010.
NRC (U.S. Regulatory Commission) 2002. Design of Erosion Protection for Long-Term
Stabilization Final Report. NUREG- I 623. Septembe r 2002. Washington, DC.
NRC 1980. Regulatory Guide 4.14, Rev. l. Radiological Effluent and Environmental Monitoring
at Uranium Mills. Apnl25,1980.
Tellco Environmental 2010. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 2009
Radon Flux Measurement Program, White Mesa Millsite, prepared for Denison Mines (USA)
Corp. by Tellco Environmental, Grand Junction, CO, Submitted to DUSA February 17 ,2010.
Pagel4 of 24
APPENDIX A
Written Comments Provided to Utah Division of Radiation Control
(See Attached Letter from Ms. Sarah M. Fields dated May 10, 2010)
Uranium Watch
P. O. Box 344
Moab, Utah 84532
435-2 1O-O1 6 6
Via electronic mail
May 10,2010
Mr. Dane Finerfrock, Director
Utah Division of Environmental Quality
Division of Radiation Control
P.O. Box 144850
salt Lake city, utah 84114-4850
RE: Comments on White Mesa Uranium Mill: Modification to the Groundwater
Discharge Permit No. UGW37004 and Amendment 4 to Radioactive Materials License
No. UT1900479.
Dear Mr. Finerfrock:
The proposed License Amendment 4 to Radioactive Materials License No. UT1900479 is
for the construction of a new tailings impoundment at the White Mesa Uranium Mill,
owned and operated by Denison Mines (USA) Corporation (DUSA, or Applicant).
Below are comments on the license amendment and the Safety Evaluation Report:
Review of License Amendment Request and Environmental Report for Cell 48.
I. WHITE MESA ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1.1. The construction of Cell 48 will impact a number of Archeological Resources at the
Mill site and in the White Mesa Archaeological District. White Mesa is in an area
adjacent to and in the vicinity of extensive tribal holdings and an area rich in
archaeological resources, which have been designated as significant and deserving of
preservation. Many Archaeological Resources on White Mesa have been found eligible
for the National Register, including resources that will be or have been impacted by
activities associated with the proposed license amendment.
The Licensee and the Utah Division of Radiation Control (DRC) have not complied with
the requirements of License Condition 9.7, which states, in pertinent part:
All disturbances associated with the proposed development will be
completed in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (as
amended) and its implementing regulations, and the Archaeological
Resources Protection Act (as amended) and its implementing regulations.
Utah Division of Radiation Control
May 10,2010
Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act includes compliance with
Section 106. The Safety Evaluation Report (SER) fails to discuss how the Applicant
fulfilled its responsibilities under the "National Historic Preservation Act (as amended)
and its implementing regulations, and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (as
amended) and its implementing regulations."
A conffactor to the licensee has commenced excavation of the Archaeological Resources
at the Mill, with approval of the DRC. However, excavation has commenced without the
any Section 106 consultation. The excavation of the valuable Archeological Resource on
White Mesa has taken place without informing and consulting with nearby tribal
governments and tribal Historic Preservation Officers and without an opportunity for
public comment.
Further, the Licensee commenced activities that have impacts on the Archaeological
Resources and are the subject of License Condition 9.7 requirements prior to this
comment period and prior to the issuance of the license amendment and final
environmental evaluation.
All activities that impact Archaeological Resources at the Mill should cease until DRC
initiates and completes a Section 106 consultation process, including consultation with
affected tribal governments or appropriate tribal representatives. The DRC should not
issue the license amendment without consulting with the Ute, Navajo, and other regional
tribal Historic Preservation Officers regarding the destruction of irreplaceable historic
resources.
Further, the SER must include a discussion of how the Applicant has complied with the
provisions of License Condition 9.7.
1.2. LICENSE CONDITION 9.7.
The DRC is not proposing any changes to License Condition 9.7, which pertains to the
cultural resources at the Mill. License Condition 9.7 refers to a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOU) between the Utah State Historical Preservation Officer (SHAPO), the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC), and Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. (a former Mill owner/licensee). The MOU was
ratified on August 20,1979, and amended on May 3, 1983. The MOU should be
amended or replaced, since it does not reflect the current situation at the Mill.
2. SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT (SER)
2.1. LICENSEE REPORTING RESPONSIBILITIES (SER, page2l).
The DRC should make the effluent monitoring reports, Semi-Annual Effluent Reports
and Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Reports and any additional effluent monitoring
information submitted by the licensee pursuant to License Condition I 1.2 available on
Utah Division of Radiation Control
May 10,2010
the DRC website in a timely manner.
2.3. LONG TERM IMPACTS
UCA R3l3-24-3D: Environmental Analysis - Long Term lmpacts, Safety Evaluation,
states that, pursuant to UAC R3l3-24-3, a major license amendment should include
"consideration of the long-term impacts." The SER discussion addresses long-term
impacts. However, the SER and the UCA section do not define long-term and leave the
issue of long-term containment of the mill tailings and their associated emissions to be
addressed in a future Reclamation Plan. Under current federal regulation (40 C.F.R. Sec.
192.3z(B)(lXi)r), consideration of the technical requirements for long-term containment
of the tailings is limited to "one thousand years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and,
in any case, for at least 200 years." The SER (page 30) gives states that Cell 48 has been
designed to provide "reasonable assurance that radiolo gical hazards will be suitably
conffolled for 1,000 years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and in any case for at
lease 200 years."
So, we have "reasonable assurance" to the extent that suitable control is "reasonably
achievable." What does this vague language mean over the long-term? The public, the
licensee, and the DRC do not really know.
The tailings will remain on White Mesa in perpetuity, that is, forever, Therefore impacts
from 200 to 1,000 years are short-term impacts, not long-term impacts, given the time
that the tailings will continue to release radon and will be a radioactive and hazardous
material requiring physical and regulatory control for as long as there are individuals and
entities capable of exercising that control.
' 40 cnR sec.192.32(8)(1Xi).
(l) Disposal areas shall each comply with the closure performance standard in Sec. 264.lll of
this chapter with respect to nonradiological hazards and shall be designed to provide reasonable
assurance of control of radiological hazards to (i) Be effective for one thousand years, to the
extent reasonably achievable, and, in any case, for at least 200 years, and, (ii) Limit releases of
radon-222 from uranium byproduct materials to the atmosphere so as to not exceed an average \2\
release rate of 20 picocuries per square meter per second (pCi/m2s).
\2\ This average shall apply to the entire surface of each disposal area over periods of at least one
year, but short compared to 100 years. Radon will come from both uranium byproduct materials
and from covering materials. Radon emissions from covering materials should be estimated as
part of developing a closure plan for each site. The standard, however, applies only to emissions
from uranium byproduct materials to the atmosphere.
Utah Division of Radiation Control
May 10,2010
Eventually the liners will break down, eventually the tailings cover will erode, and
eventually the tailings and the associated radioactive and non-radioactive contaminants
will disperse into the air, water, and soils.
Any evaluation of the long-term impacts of the proposed licensing action must address
the potential impacts of the dispersion of the tailings from natural forces over the
thousands and millions of years that the tailings will remain in place.
2.4. PERMANENT ISOLATION WITHOUT ONGOING MAINTENANCE (SER, page
24)
10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 1, states that tailings should be disposed of in a
manner that no active maintenance is required to preserve conditions of the site.
There is no doubt that over the years, active maintenance will be required to preserue
conditions of the site. The Department of Energy (DOE) has already discovered that
active maintenance is required at some of the uranium mill sites that have been reclaimed
and that DOE have responsibility for, due to erosion. The DOE is actively looking at
different cover and tailings design systems because of the problems they have
encountered at these sites.
No matter what the design is, eventually the cover, tailings, and White Mesa itself, will
erode, as demonstrated by the geological landscape in the region. Any claim to continued
long-term isolation of the tailings--without active maintenance--via a man-made design is
not supportable.
The DRC should consult with the DOE and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and take
into consideration recent studies and data regarding the effectiveness of tailings system
designs and materials to update the final cover design and materials requirements in order
to achieve the maximum long-term isolation of the tailings with minimal maintenance.
The DRC should not mislead the public and licensee into thinking that isolation of the
tailings for 1,000 and for the long-term future can take place without active maintenance.
2.5. IMPACTS OF DEWATERING OF THE TAILINGS CELL (SER, pages 25 -26)
The discussion of the permanent isolation without ongoing maintenance (10 CFR Part 40,
Appendix A, Criterion l) and the Reclamation Plan refer to the dewatering of the tailings
cell after the operational life of the cell. However, there is minimal discussion about two
of the primary problems encountered at uranium mills once operation has ceased and cell
dewatering commences. Once dewatering commences, the result is an increase in the
release of radon from the cell and an increase in windblown tailings. The SER mentions
the possibility of the use of "platform fill," but provides little information and analysis of
the use of fill or other means to minimize the emission of radon, hazardous and
radioactive particulates to the atmosphere and the environment.
Utah Division of Radiation Control
May 10,2010
The SER should discuss in more detail the impacts of cell dewatering on the emission of
radon and other gases and hazardous and radioactive particulates and how these impacts
will be mitigated during the estimated 5.5 years between the cessation of cell operation
and the placement of an interim and final cover.
2.6. OFF SITE MEASURING DEVICES
The February 12,2010,letter to Dave Frydenlund, DUSA, from Senes Consultants Ltd.,
states (page 2): Due to the inaccuracy of the radon measurement devices the mill is not
required to sample for environmental radon under its license."
The Application for Cell 4B and the SER fail to provide supportive documentation
regarding various types of radon measuring devices and their supposed "inaccuracy" to
justify the failure to measure environmental radon from Cell 4 B and other radon sources
at the Mill. This would include on- and off-site monitoring of radon.
The SER should include a full justification, with supporting documentation, of the on-
and off-site radionuclide monitoring programs, including monitoring of radon. If DUSA
is not required to sample for environmental radon and other radioactive releases on- and
off-site, the public must know why and have supporting technical bases,
2.7. EF:FLUENT CONTROL DURING OPERATIONS (SER, pages 59 - 60)
The SER discusses compliance with l0 C.F.R. 40, Appendix A, Criterion 8, with respect
radioactive effluents from the mill and tailings impoundment, Criterion 8 includes the
requirement:
Milling operations producing or involving thorium byproduct material
must be conducted in such a manner as to provide reasonable assurance
that the annual dose equivalent does not exceed 25 millirems to the whole
body, 75 millirems to the thyroid, and25 millirems to any other organ of
any member of the public as a result of exposures to the planned discharge
of radioactive materials , rudon-?ZO and its daughters excepted, to the
general environment.
The SER fails to discuss how compliance with the above requirement for exposures to the
public will be measured and compliance will be assured with respect the release of the
discharge of radioactive materials from Cell 48 and other sources at the mill during the
operation of the tailings cell.
The SER should explain exactly how the Applicant will demonstrate compliance with
Criterion 8 with respect the emission from Cell 48.
2.8. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATIONS
Utah Division of Radiation Control
May 10,2010
The SER does not discuss required compliance with other state and federal regulations
prior to the commencement of construction of Cell 4 B. This would include compliance
with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subpart A. Section 61.07 requires that
DUSA submit an application to the Utah Division of Air Quality (DAQ for Cell 48 as a
new 40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subpart W regulated source and receive an approval from the
DAQ, pursuant to Section 61.08. Recently, DUSA was issued a Notice of Violation by
the Environmental Protection Agency for failure to comply with the Subpart A
application/approval process for the Arizona I uranium mine. Therefore, the DRC
should remind DUSA of their Part 61 responsibilities. Additionally, DUSA may be
required to amend their air quality permit for the non-radioactive emissions from the
uranium mill.
The White Mesa license should contain a condition that states that DUSA must comply
with all applicable federal and state regulations and statutes and a license condition that
states that DUSA cannot commence construction of Cell 48 until DUSA receives the
required approval as a new 40 C.F.R. Subpart W regulated source from the DAQ.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sarah M. Fields
Program Director
Uranium Watch
And on behalf of:
Glen Canyon Group
Sierra Club
P.OBox622
Moab, utah84532
Harold Shepherd
Executive Director
Red Rock Forests
P.O. Box 298
Moab, utah84532
43s/259-s640
APPENDIX B
Transcript of Public Hearing Held May 4. 2010 at Blanding, Utah
DENISON t'4INE5 (U5A) CORPORATION
WHITE MESA URANIUM MILL
GROUNDWATER DI SCHARGE PERI'IIT MODI F ICATION
PUBLIC HEARING
Tuesday, May 4,
7:00 p. m.
20L0
Held at the Blanding Arts and Events Center
7L5 West 200 South
Blanding, Utah
Repo r ted by Vi c ky PlcDaniel, CSR, RMR
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
L0
LL
L2
13
L4
L5
L6
L7
L8
t9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
FOR THE UTAH DIVISION OJ RADIATION CONTROL:
Phi 1 GobleDepartment of Envi ronmental Qual i ty158 North 1950 WestSalt Lake Cl ty, Utah 84L44Te1: [phone]Fax: [phone]pgoble@utah. gov
Ci tiCourt
80L.532.
, LLC
344L
1_
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
L1
L2
13
L4
L5
L6
L7
L8
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
PROCEEDINGS
I"lR. G0BLE: 0kay, 'i t's seven o'clock and
I'11 go ahead and get started.
My name i s Phi 1 Goble. I'm wj th the
D'i vision of Radiation Control, and today I have
Mr. David Rupp assisting me. We're here to take
publ i c comment regardi ng the proposed changes for the
Wh'i te 14esa Mi11 permit and also license amendment.
The way th j s w'i 11 work today i s, I'11 go
ahead and make a bri ef statement, then I wi 11 open
the t'i me over to you to speak.
The way we 've set 'i t up, and you saw ou r
public notice, i s because we have two different
documents we' re talki ng about today, the 1 i cense and
also the permit. We're going to set it up so we'11
talk about the 1 i cense fi rst and then we'I1 talk
about the perm'i t. So f rom seven to ei ght we'11 talk
about the license, eight to n'i ne we'11 talk about the
permi t. There may be some people who only want to
make comment on one of them, so we' 1 1 gi ve them an
opportuni ty to 1et me know now, and i f they would
like to leave, they can 1eave, so they don't have to
stay for the whole t i me. But i f you want to stay for
the whole time, that's fine.
Ci ti Court , LLC
801_.532.344L
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
L0
LL
L2
L3
L4
1_5
L6
L7
L8
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
4
The way thi s 'i s goi ng to work i s, I'11
give each and every person a chance to talk. You'11
have fi ve mi nutes to speak. Everyone gets an
opportunity to speak. We have seven people to talk
right now. And then at the end of your five minutes,
what we'11 do i s actually, after four mi nutes
we' 1 1 say " one mi nute " to gi ve you a wa rn i ng, and
then we'11 say "tjme." And then vve'11 need you to
stop your public comment, and the next person gets
the opportuni ty.
At the end of the pubf i c comment , afte r
everyone has had a chance, those who sti 11 have more
to say wi 11 get the opportuni ty to speak agai n. So
we want to hear everyone i f they have anythi ng to
say.
A1so, the public comment period actually
doesn't close ti11 this next Monday, on May the 10th.
5o if you don't say everything you'd f ike to say and
you forget about i t, you sti 11 have the opportuni ty
to make publ i c comment. And you can submi t that to
me ei ther by e-mai 1, whi ch i s pgoble@utah. gov, or you
can also mail that to us. 0ur address can be found
on our webs'i te, which is radiationcontrol.utah.gov.
So what I'd like to do now is, I'm going
to look at the f ist, and I want to determine who is
Ci tiCourt, LLC
80r..532.3441
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
L0
11
L2
13
L4
15
16
t7
L8
1.9
20
2L
22
23
24
z5
goi ng to speak j ust on the 1 i cense, who on the
permi t, or who's go'i ng to speak on both. So i t Iooks
1i ke the fi rst person here we11, he actually says
he's unsure if he wants to make a comment or not, is
Steve Hancock. Do you want to make a comment?
MR. HANC0CK: f'm sti 11 not sure.
l,lR. GOBLE : 0kay, we' 1l put you at the
end. The next person I have here i s Bradley Angel.
NR. ANGEL: I'11 j ust make one comment
addressing both.
MR. G0BLE: 0kay. That sounds fine. 5o
you'tl do both.
0kay. Next we have Toni Turk. Do you
want to do just the license or the permit, or both?
0r are you j ust maki ng a general statement?
MR. TURK: Just a general statement.
MR. G0BLE: 0kay. All ri ght. And
Mr. Chris Webb?
l'lR. WEBB: 0ne comment .
MR. GOBLE: 0kay. And l4s. F'i elds?
H5. FIELDS: 0n both
l'lR. G0BLE : Both. And Mr. Lyman?
1"1R. LYNAN: Both.
t'lR. G0BLE : Both .
0kay. Wetl, what I'11 do first is, I'11
C'itiCourt, LLC
801.532.344t
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
L0
1L
L2
L3
L4
L5
16
L7
L8
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
6
j ust te11 you, I guess, what some of the changes are
f or the permi t and the 1i cense, and then v'Je'11 go
ahead and open up the publ i c comment . And i t looks
1i ke the fi rst person to speak wi 11 be Mr. Angel.
I'11 let you know when that time has come.
So si nce we're goi ng to be talki ng about
the license first, now, the big thing here is Denison
M'i nes have proposed to make a nevl ta'i 1i ngs ce11 ,
Taif ings Ce11 48. That is the reason for having this
publ i c meeti ng today. Some of the changes or
additions to the license'include the subm'ittal of an
updated Reclamation Plan and specifications for
approval to 'i nclude Tailings Ce11 48, changes in
tai 1i ngs ce11 wastewater freeboard requi rements, the
submittal for approval for written Standard 0perating
Procedures, and improvements for content for the
Annual Techni cal Evaluati on Report.
And then rega rd i ng the pe rmi t , we have an
addition of a definition for engineering design
standards for the new Taif ings Ce11 48, def inition of
BAT performance standards for Tailings Ce11 48,
'i nstallation of at least three new mon'i tori ng wells
.
hydraulically downgradient of Tailings Ce11 48, the
submi ttal of an updated BAT moni tori ng plan for ce11
48, the submittal of an additional hydrogeologic
C'it'iCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
L
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
L0
l_ 1_
L2
L3
L4
L5
L5
L7
18
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
5o, do we have anyone e1 se who' s maki ng
publ i c comment? We have one more? Can you bri ng
that to me, ptease.
investigation report
and the submi ttal of
regarding Ce11 48.
MR. RUPP:
Actually, it's a ques
MR. GOBL E
have a question mark
comment?
of nearby seeps and Rui n Spri ng,
an engineering as-built report
Sure. Actual1y, not.
tion. Maybe. It's a maybe.
: 0kay. Mr. Taylor Lyman, you
here. Are you wanti ng to make
MR. T. LYMAN: We.11 See.
MR. GOBLE: Okay. Well , we can wai t untj 1
the end and I can ask you.
All right. Now, like I said, the fi rst
person who wj 11 make publi c comment wi 11 be
lvlr. Bradley Ange1. And like I said, what we'11 do is
we'11 give you five minutes, you'11 hear a one-m'i nute
warning, and then we'11 te11 you "time. " Then you
also have the opportuni ty to gi ve your comment agai n.
5o 1et's turn thi s over to Mr. AngeI.
MR. ANGEL: Thanks. Good eveni ng. Agai n,
my name i s Bradley Angel , and my address i s P.0. Box
1078, Moab. And I'm here as d'i rector of an
organtzation ca1led Green Act'i on for Health and
Ci tiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
L
2
3
,4
5
5
7
8
9
r.0
LL
L2
L3
L4
15
15
L7
L8
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
C'itiCourt, LLC
80L.532.344L
8
Envi ronmental Justice and on behalf of our
constituents in both Grand and San Juan County
i ncludi ng Whi te Bas'i n Ute communi ty.
A few comments. 0ne i s that I've been
coming to hearings on this mi11 for a number of years
now, and I know i t's not how your agency does thi s,
but it's a problem and it's a flaw that I didn't
recei ve noti ce. And unless you affi rmati vely si gn up
on your websi te on the L'i stServ, you don't get these
notices.
And that mi ght be someth i ng I can do, but
for people who are actually most. di rectly affected by
decisions the state makes and is making around this
facil1ty, jt's a big problem. Because, for example,
a lot of folks at the White Basin Ute community are
low i ncome and do not have regular access to
Internet. So the way the rules are set up
systemi cal1y makes i t a real i ty that most folks who
are most af f ected have no 'i dea th'i s meeti ng i s even
happeni ng, and I thi nk that's a real problem. And
one of the reasons it's such a big problem is that
your agency and other state agencies consistently
fail to assess the impacts of actual ones that are
documented as wel 1 as potent i al i n the futu re on the
health and envi ronment and cultural resources of thi s
L
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
L0
1L
L2
L3
L4
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
area.
5o, for example, you know, when was the
last time you all assessed the yellowcake coming out
of the stacks at the urani um mi 1l ? When 'i s the last
t i me the people of Wh i te lvlesa , the actual t r i ba1
members, were i nf ormed about that? I don't know .i f
that ever happened.
For the discussion and issues before us
today, i n parti cular we are very concerned and
opposed to thi s new constructi on that's proposed
because, once again, with the blessing of the State
of Utah, the company i s destroyi ng ceremoni at,
potenti a1 ceremoni a1 but certai n1y culturally
significant s'i tes that are well documented, that,
just as you at the state, the people in this audience
would not want or churches and temples desecrated,
this once again with the state blessings is what's
happen i ng.
We thjnk not only is that unethical and
immoral, we also thi nk i t's i 11egal. And i t doesn't
matter from our perspecti ve i f i t's happeni ng on
private land, because it's happening courtesy of
state permi ts.
The State of Utah has an obl i gat i on. you
are making consideration under federal rules. you
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
LL
L2
13
L4
L5
L6
L7
L8
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
have delegated authori ty from the federal government
to run thi s program. And I would venture to guess
that the Di v'i s'ion of Rad i at i on Cont rol recei ves some
other additional types of benefits, maybe financial
benefi ts, such as grant program or other support from
the federal government.
If any of that is true, which I think a1,1
of it probably is, then the state once again is
violating the Un'i ted States Civil Rights Act, Title
VI. And I've ra'i sed thi s bef ore, and i t's completely
ignored by the state.
As a reci pi ent of f ederal f und'i ng, you are
prohi bi ted from taki ng any acti ons that would have
di scrimi natory or di sproporti onate impact on low
i ncome people of color , 1 i ke the Wh i te Mesa Ute
people. It's j11ega1.
MR. RUPP: 0ne minute.
MR. ANGEL: And the desec rati on and
absolute destruction of ancient sites that could
involve burials that are certainly culturatly
si gni fi cant, not j ust some anci ent arti fact for a
museum; they're part of the living culture of the
people here. And your agency, by the deci si ons
you've made in the past and by the one I believe
you're plann'i ng on approving, which you should not,
Ci tiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
1_L
L
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
L0
LL
L2
L3
L4
L5
L5
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
would not only help desecrate these si
to devastate the culture of the native
th'i s area, and we believe violate the
Act. So we rea11y want you to take a
before any decisions are made. Thank
l4R. GOBLE: Mr. Angel, did
reserve any time for later?
MR. ANGE L : No . Thank you .
HR. G0BLE : A1 1 r i ght . 0u r next pe rson
will be a Plr. Ton'i Turk.
NR. TURK: Thank you. I appreciate the
opportunity to address th'i s body. I'd like to
introduce myself . I'm the mayor of Blanding, and I
would 1 i ke to respond to some of Mr. Angel's
comments. S'i nce he 'i s f rom 14oab, he may not be, you
know, as i nformed about the communi cati ons and the
processes that occur here as someone that i s 1oca1.
I would po j nt out that Whi te lvlesa, Inc. i
a maj or employer of the Whi te Mesa Ute communi ty and
works i n collaborati on wi th Deni son Mi nes for that
employment.
The other part to that is that Cleo
Bradford, who has worked very closely wi th the Whi te
14esa Utes, i s very computer 1i terate and i s able to
receive and disperse all communications that pertain
tes, continue
peoptes of
Civil Rights
look at that
you.
you want to
Ci tiCourt, LLC
801.532.344t
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
L0
LL
L2
L3
L4
L5
t6
L7
L8
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
L2
to that commun i ty and , to my knowledge , does that .
In fact, they have a Ute meeting house just close to
this facility.
The other i s, at Rotary Club recently we
had a detailed presentat'i on of the archeological
recove ry of knowledge that Den i son l"li nes has f unded ,
and that has added significantly to the database of
understanding of the cultures that have lived here
anciently. And all of those artifacts that are
recovered and recovered according to archeological
procedure are made available for further research at
the Edge of the Cedars Museum.
Now, I would 1 i ke to address the plans for
this expansion of the new ce11 and express confidence
j n the sc i ence that the Wh i te l''lesa management ,
Den'i son Mines, their oversight that they have
exerci sed. If there vvas somethi ng that was goi ng to
be going on ten miles from this community that was a
threat to thi s communi ty, Blandi ng Ci ty would be the
f i rst i n f i ne to be conce rned . But we do have
confidence that they are professional and that good
sci ence i s goi ng forward. And there i s a place for
regulatory oversight, and that 'i s to ensure that
those processes are appropriate and timely and that
the necessary adj ustments are made as adj ustments are
C'it'iCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
L3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
L0
11
t2
13
L4
L5
15
L7
t8
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
seen to be needed.
I would like to point out that 5an Juan
County i s the most impoveri shed county i n the state
of Utah. By some reckoni ng, i t's somewhere between
the 8th and the L5th most impoveri shed county i n the
Un'i ted States. And to not support one of the mai n
economi c engi nes that support thi s economy and
support a large porti on of our i nd'i genous peoples and
their f ivelihoods I think would be shortsighted. It
certainly would fa11 short of be'i ng concerned for the
1i f e, 1i berty, pursu'it of happi ness of our populati on
that res'i de here.
And I would express the opi nion that
Deni son Mi nes 'i s good f or our communi ty, i t's good
for ou r a rea , and we have eve ry conf i dence that they
are bei ng good nei ghbors and that they are bei ng good
contri butors to our economy.
Those are my thoughts.
MR. GOBLE : AI 1 r i ght . Thank you ,
14r. Turk. 0ur next person that wanted to speak is
I{r. Chris Webb.
I'lR. WEBB: He11o. My name i s Ch r i s Webb.
I am the Blanding city manager.
I have been associ ated wi th the mi 11 most
of my f i fe growi ng up here j n Blandi ng. In fact, I
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
L4
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
LL
L2
13
L4
L5
L5
L7
L8
t9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
vvas involved in the construction of the mj11, though
at that time was not aware at what point I might get
involved or be involved w"i th the mi11 and their
operations there.
As I started my j ob as the Blandi ng Ci ty
manager L4 years ago, the mi11 operat'i ons have been
up and down. They've been able to propose di fferent
actions out there again to continue to see the
further viability of the operations there.
As those things have happened, it's ra'i sed
questions in the minds not only of Blanding citizens
but of other people around i n the regi on. And a lot
of people get very, very emoti onaIly i nvolved i n
these thi ngs, sayi ng, 1 i sten, we love the area, we
love the surroundings, and we're worried, what's this
going to do to us. And vve can't get too caught up
emot i onal 1y . We have to rely on the sc i ences and we
have to get 'i nvolved
For those reasons, as a communi ty we
approached the NRC and said, okay, te11 us what's
real. We need to know if there is a health and life
saf ety threat here. We need to know i f there 'i s a
problem. Because again, as our mayor has just stated
previously, we'11 be the fi rst to step i n 1i ne.
Because the health and life safety of our cit'i zens is
Cit'iCourt, LLC
801. s32.344r
1.5
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
L0
11
L2
13
L4
L5
15
L7
L8
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
more i mportant than any economi c development ,
obviously; although, agajn, that's an important part
of a communi ty i f i t can be done ri ght.
5o meeting with them and having the
sci ences explai ned to us and what's happeni ng and how
those protections are 'i n place and what needs to
happen, it was amazing. It was absolutely amazing to
find out the things that have to be done and all the
regulations 'i n place to ensure public safety.
l-he State of Utah, Blanding City, San Juan
County, none of us want to see anybody hurt or
damaged. And what we have found out i n our
experience over the many, many years now in dealing
with the mi11 is that they are a very good steward
and a very good partner and a very good communi ty
member. And i f those regulati ons are followed to the
T, all the way down to what kind of pencil you can
use i n maki ng your reports and si gni ng your names and
those ki nd of thi ngs, 'i t's j ust amazi ng to me all the
regulat'i ons that you have to fo11ow through.
And as those things, the sciences and
stuf f were explai ned to us, we became very support.ive
of the processes and became very confi dent that they
can continue those processes if those regulations
that are set up by the scjentjsts that run our nation
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
L0
LL
L2
L3
L4
15
L6
L7
L8
1.9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
and run our state. We appreciate that. Aga'i n,
emotions set aside, we support what's happening there
and want to speak in favor of that.
MR. G0BLE : A1 1 r i ght . Thank You ,
Mr. Webb. The next person that wanted to speak i s
Ms. Fields.
MS. FIELDS: My name is Sarah Fields, and
I represent an organization named Uranium t,{atch in
P1oab, Utah. And I thank you f or the opportuni ty to
speak.
I agree with the previous speakers that
the regulations and the implementation of the
regulations by the licensee are very important. I
wi 11 be submi tti ng some wri tten comments, but I also
have a few oral comments.
First regards the archeological resources
at the mit1. Currently archeological excavation js
taking place f rom either a few over ten
archeological sites are being excavated. Most of the
archeologi cal si tes on Whi te Mesa are anci ent pi t
houses.
When the s i te was const ructed i n the 1 ate
1970's and ear1y 1980's, there was extensive
archeological excavation. Artifacts were taken.
Some of those ended up at the Uni versi ty of Utah;
Ci tiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
L7
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
L0
1L
L2
13
L4
L5
L6
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
some of those ended up at Edge of the Ceda rs . And
yet in the past 30 years, none of those artifacts
have been exhibited at Edge of the Cedars, and there
have been no additional studies and there have been
no presentations related to that extensive
archeologi ca1 excavat'i on ,
Although arti facts wi 11 be taken,
essentially these h'i storic, to me, incredibly
beauti f u1 and si gn'i f i cant si tes that could have been
the basi s for a national monument here i n 5an Juan
County, which would probably over the years have
brought more economi c benefi t to thi s area, these
si tes wi 1t also be destroyed. They wi ll be destroyed
by the construction of the miIl.
5o the essence of these sites will be
destructjon. And as the milI expands, more sites
wi 11 be destroyed, because Whi te lvlesa of i tself is an
archeological district, and I would think that the
communi ty would have more of an i nterest i n
preserving those sites.
I've talked.with the NRC recently about
whether Secti on 106 consultati on was requ"i red. I
have not yet gotten a response f rom them. They' re
looking into this. But I think the failure of the
Div'i sion of Radiation Control and the failure of the
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
L0
1L
L2
L3
L4
L5
L5
L7
L8
r.9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
Utah Hi stori cal Soci ety to consult w'i th the Whi te
Mesa Ute and the Ute Mountai n tri bal governments and
the Navajo tribal historic preservation is
unacceptable, and I feel the Division of Radiation
Control must consult with these entities before they
approve th'i s t i cense amendment .
Also, license cond'i tion 9.7 needs to be
stricken from the license. That license condition
pertains to cultural resources at the mi11 and refers
to a memorandum of agreement between the Utah State
historical preservation officer
MR. RUPP: 0ne minute.
MS. FIELDS: the advisory council in
historic preservation, the NRC and energy is nuclear.
This I"IOU is totally out of date. It's from L979,
amended in L983. It doesn't refer to the current
conditions of the f icense, so that license condition
should be reviewed and should be brought up to date.
Let's see. I'11 just go on what I have
t'ime for. 0h. Also, the Divis'i on of Radiation
Control should make the ef f luent mon'i tori ng reports
and any additional effluent monitori ng'i nformation
submi tted by the f i censee pursuant to 1 i cense
condi tion L1.2 avai table on the DRC websi te. You've
done a rea11y good job to make alI the documents
Ci tiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
19
L
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
LL
1.2
13
L4
L5
16
L7
18
1"9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
relati ng to thi s 1 i cense amendment request, the cell
4A
MR. RUPP: T'i me's up.
MS. FIELDS: the license ava.i 1ab1e, and
I commend you for that. Thank you.
MR. G0BLE: Thank you, 14s. Fields. Would
you 1 i ke to reserve some time after everyone else has
had the opportunity to speak?
14S. FIELDS: Yes.
MR. GOBLE: 0kay. We'11 go ahead and do
that for you. The next who wanted to speak was
14r. Joe Lyman.
MR. J . LYMAN: I ki nd of stumbted i nto
fi ndi ng out thi s meeti ng was happeni ng, and I sent
out an e-mai 1 to a few people, hopi ng they could get
here. And I'11 address a thought to that a l.i ttle
b'i t 1ater.
. But my i mpress'ion of what ' s happened wi th
the mi11 over the years that it's been there, I
worked there for a period of time when I was younger,
'i s that by and large they've been very responsi bIe
with what they've done. I think that 14r. Webb's
comments addressed that point.
I have seen at times, some of the
opposi tion to activi ty of the mi 11 have not been well
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
L0
LL
L2
L3
L4
1"5
L6
L7
18
t9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
founded. Maybe some of them have, maybe some of them
haven ' t ; but I know the re ' s been some of the
opposi ti on expressed that turned out to not be
part'i cularly well f ounded. So I can' t address what
anybody is saying today. It's just been h'i storical
observation.
I thi nk the employment that they provi de
'i s cri t j cal. As Mayor Turk i llustrated, we're i n an
ext remely depressed economy , and a lot of the
employment that the mi 11 provi des i s to the very
people that some say we should be protecti ng from the
mi 11. And i t could be devastati ng to the enti re area
to not have that employment and support that, whi ch I
do.
I 'm pretty su re we could probably have a
roomful of people here i n support of the mi 11, but
they, 1i ke me , ar e busi nessmen who are tryi ng to
provi de for themselves and provi de opportuni ti es for
others to provi de f or the'i r f ami 1i es . We' re j ust too
busy. We're trying to make this country run, and
frankly, we're too busy trying to do that to spend a
lot of time and energy comi ng to these kinds of
meetings.
And on that note, I'Ve sti 11 got work to
do tonight, so I've got to go. But I've got to think
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
2t
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
L0
LL
L2
L3
L4
L5
r.5
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
74
25
I would represent 50 people if they only had the time
and the abi 1 i ty to become aware of these thi ngs to
come and speak and support the mi 1 1 . I thi nk they
would be here. 5o I support what they're tryi ng to
do. Thank you.
MR. GOBLE: A11 r'i ght. Thank you,
Mr. Lyman.
5o the next person, we have a 14r. Steve
Hancock. You had unsure. Would you t'i ke to make
a --
MR. HANC0CK: I 'm good for now.
MR. G0BLE: All ri ght, Steve. And another
person we have as kind of a maybe was Taylor Lyman.
Would you like to
I4R. T. LYMAN: No.
MR. GOBLE: No. 0kay, Ms. Fi e1ds. And
presently we don ' t have anyone eI se on the 1 i st , so
go ahead and speak ti 11 you're done, I guess.
NS. FIELDS: I won't take too much time.
MR. G0BL E : 0kay .
MS. FIELDS: In going over the safety
evaluati on report, and I , too, have other emptoyment
and d'i d not have a lot of time to go over alI of
this; but when you talk about long-term impacts of
the mi11, it states that the SERs, which is the
C"itiCourt, LLC
80r".532.344L
L
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
1_0
LL
L2
1"3
L4
i.5
L6
L7
18
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
22
Safety Evaluati on Report, whi ch i s the envi ronmental
analysis that you're required to do for a major
1 i cense amendment under the Atomi c Energy Act; the
Atomi c Energy Act has speci fi c requj rements for
agreement states, and the state of Utah i s an
agreement state under the NRC's regulation under the
Atomi c Energy Act where the federal government has
given the state of Uteh the responsibility for
regulating uranium mills in Utah.
But when you talk about long-term impacts,
you don't real1y define what long-term impact means.
The SER states that Ce11 48 has been designed to
provide reasonable assurance that radiolog'i ca1
hazards will be suitably controlled for 1,000 years
to the extent reasonably ach'i evable, and in any case,
for at least 200 years. The federal regulations
limit the technical assessment for the technical
requi rements for long-term contai nment of the
tailings to that 200-year to 1,000-year period.
However, we all know that those tailings
are goi ng to be there i n perpetui ty, forever. So 200
to 1,000 years isn't a very long time period when you
thi nk that they are goi ng to be there forever and
ever.
So eventually the liners wi 11 break down,
Ci tiCourt, LLC
801. s32.3441.
23
L
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
L0
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L5
L7
18
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
the tai 1i ngs cover w'i 11 erode, and eventually the
tailings and associated radioactive and
nonradioactive contaminants will disperse into the
air, water, and soi1. It's not a matter of if , it's
a matter of when. lvlost you, me, the people i n
thi s room are not goi ng to be here then. But there
stj1l witl be, hopefully, a population in this area.
And I th'i nk when the Di vi si on of Radi ati on
Control looks at the long-term impacts that they
really have to at least honestly assess what's goi ng
to happen to those tai 1 i ngs 10,000 years from now
you know, 2,000, 10,000, 100,000 years from now.
A1so, 'i n your SER you talk about i solati on
wi thout ongoi ng mai ntenance. And I thi nk the
Division of Radiation Control in conjunct'i on with the
NRC and in conjunction with the Department of Energy,
whi ch now has respons i bi 1 i ty, that' s Department of
Energy now has the responsibility for long-term
ma'i ntenance for all the o1d type, what they call
Title I uranium mi11s, and for any uranium mi11s,
other uranium mi11s that have closed.
So they're finding out what the issues are
even over the short period of time of 50 years from
the closure of some of these s i tes . 5o they've been
di scoveri ng what some of the long-term maintenance
CitiCourt, LLC
801. s32.344L
t
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
tL
L2
L3
L4
t5
L5
L7
18
r.9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
24
issues are, whether it's contamination of the
groundwater. And in the west there are billions of
gatlons of groundwater that has been contami nated by
uranium m'i 11s.
So they're looking at groundwater
contami nati on, they' re looki ng at the erosi on, and
even now the Department of Energy i s looki ng i nto
different types of caps for mi11 tailings, because I
thi nk they' re fi ndi ng that some of the previ ously
designed caps that have been put in place are realIy
not as adequate as they had predicted.
So I think the Divis'i on of Radiation
Control with the NRC and the D0E should take a harder
look at what really what 'i s a realistic long-term
maintenance scenario for White lvlesa and for other
uranium mi11 tailing sites, whether in Utah or in
other states, and take advantage of the new data and
the new information that is being generated so that
when this tailing ce11 and the other tailing ce11 at
Whi te Mesa are complete, have gone through operati on,
they get covered, the plan, the long-term reclamation
plan is adequate.
Thank you.
MR. GOBLE: Thank you, Ms. Fields. Is
there anyone else who didn't sign up who would like
Ci tiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
25
L
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
L0
11
L2
13
L4
L5
15
L7
L8
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
to speak now?
NR. TURK: Is it possible for additional
comment?
MR. G0BLE: AbsoluteIy, lvlr. Turk. You can
come up, absolutely.
l,lR. TURK: The poi nt that I would l.i ke to
bring forward at this t'i me'i s, following Katrina,
that disaster on the GuIf Coast, which was
devastating to our country, the Assoc jated Press
conducted a study to determine what city in the
Un'i ted States would be the saf est ci ty f rom natural
di saster, and they came to the conclusi on that
Blandi ng would be that ci ty. And that v{as an Ap
publicat'i on.
I think that rea11y speaks to the
substructure of the land that we're in. We're not in
an earthquake prone area. We don't have signjficant
natural d'i sturbance in this area. It would seem that
'i f you're going to have a location to contain the
materi als that need to be contai ned when we're, you
know, talki ng i n terms of many years i nto the future,
it would seem that this would be a place that would
certainly rise to the top as a locat'i on that would
have a long-term, secure dynamic coming from nature
itself.
Ci tiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
L0
Lt
L2
L3
L4
15
L6
L7
L8
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
26
So with that in mind, I believe that
this you know, with sc'i ence, with nature, we have
the potential to create what we need to create 'i n
order to produce the energy that thi s nati on i s goi ng
to requi re.
There's been a lot of debate about nuclear
energy, and that's not what thi s meeti ng's about; but
on the green side of the equation, nuclear energy is
free from a 1ot of the downsides of other energy
forms. So I just want to add that part
MR. GOBLE: All r'i ght. Thank you,
Mr. Turk.
more?
Let' s see. A1 so, Mr . AngeI , do you have
And then we'11 fo11ow up w'i th Mr. Webb.
MR. ANGEL: Bradley Angel . You know,
sc'i ence that al1ows radi oact'i ve materi als to be
unprotected and unwatched and have no provisions for
'i t for thousands of years after Deni son f{i nes i s gone
and we're all gone is a big problem. And as we all
know, for example, i n thj s area the wi nd blows pretty
f iercely, and teaving radioactive materials blowing.
I would also ask you if the state agency is aware of
any time, for example, that radjoactive materials
associated with this facillty ended up not contained,
such as by the h i ghway.
27
L
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
L0
LL
L2
L3
L4
1.5
t6
L7
L8
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
And agai n, you know, i ssues of what comes
out 'i n the stack, parti cularly yellowcake. When was
the Iast t'i me? I think that's rea1ly important,
because vnte're all in a need for good economy, for
health as we11. And I thi nk that i s more important
than that . But , you know, people a1 so have a r i ght
'i n our democracy to know what they're bei ng exposed
to, and I don't thi nk that i nf ormat'i on's been f u11y
disclosed; and I know for a fact in talk'i ng to a
number of tri bat members over the years, they di d not
know, for example, that yellowcake was comi ng out of
that stack. And that's unacceptable.
In terms of an economi c boom, I thi nk i f
you look at, i n one short sentence, there's an
economi c boom i n Moab ri ght now resulti ng i n the
cleanup of the radioact'i ve pile of tailings from the
old Atlas Mj11. But that's not a good situation.
It's costing taxpayers millions and millions and
mi lf i ons of dollars. 5o I thi nk we need to be
protective of health.
AI so that , whateve r you r pe rspect i ve , 'i f
you,'re for this facility, against it, don't know, I
agai n want to say that i t's not j ust enough that
Mr. Bradf ord at Whi te l,lesa, Inc. knew about thi s. We
know a number of tri bal members, at least, I can't
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
LL
L2
13
L4
L5
L6
L7
L8
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
28
speak for all, had no idea this was going on tonight
And that's why I think the state has to do a better
job and change the rules to ensure that in a
democracy people have the ri ght to exerci se thei r
democrat rights to partici pate i n dec'i sions that
affect thei r 1 j ves , and that i ncludes knowi ng about
meet i ngs f i ke th i s . But thank you .
MR. G0BLE : Thank you , Mr . AngeI .
14r. Webb, you wanted to say more?
MR. WEBB: I did. Just a couple poi nts,
heari ng these addi ti onal comments.
There's a 1ot of thi ngs, bei ng i n a ci ty
posi tion and havi ng to go through thi s process
myself. In addi ti on to a ci ty manager, I'm also the
envi ronmental certi fyi ng offi cer for the ci ty, state
recogni zed. We've got to go through these processes
all of the time.
And there's a 1ot of these exi sti ng laws
that we'd like to see changed one way or the other.
It's been addressed here tonight. I think the state
ought to change the ruIes. They ought to do this,
they ought to do that. And some of those rules wi 1I
probably go through a process of change.
I also sat on the State Division of
Drinking Water board for eight years, went through
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
29
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
LL
L2
L3
l4
15
L5
1.7
18
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
all kinds of processes and public processes in these
ru1es. And there's people that come i n all the time
sayi ng, these rules need to change; we've got to get
tougher, because what if , what if , what 'i f .
We11, some of those "what i fs, " as we
d'i scover more and the sciences change and they're
saying that rules need to be changed, great, change
them. But these appl i cat'ions bef ore you today a ren' t
about those what i fs. And yeah, and thi s a good
forum to encourage the state to change the ru1es.
But these applicat'i ons ought to be judged today on
today's rules and the rules that are today in place.
And i f those rules at some poi nt requi re addi ti onal
monjtoring, great.
But I can te11 you that the moni tori ng i s
happeni ng, that the state ensures the moni tori ng's
happeni ng, and that the rules are bei ng followed as
they are j n p1ace. And so we encourage the state to
make sure that when they judge these applications for
processes that they're j udgi ng them based on today's
rules, not on hopes for changes in future ru1es, but
those rules are changed today.
The other point that I wanted to make is
with regard to archaeology. We understand th.e
important heri tage that comes to the c j t'i zens of our
Ci tiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
L
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
1"0
1L
L2
L3
L4
15
L5
L7
18
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
Ci tiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
30
communi ty i n these archeologi caI si tes. The ci ty of
Blanding is over 40 percent Native American, so we
understand how i mportant those s'i tes are, and we
spend as a city in doing our projects hundreds of
thousands of dollars i n collecti ng data, i n analyzing
that data so that we can find out and make sure that
we're not letti ng some valuable resource go or some
valuable data go.
But as we go to an area like our big
reservo'i r, when we went out there and put i n out Bi g
Fork Reservoir, there are so many sites 'i n our area
that nothing would happen if we didn't let any site
go. So sometimes s'i tes have to be mit'i gated. We
collect all the data we can, and then a site is
covered, or could even be lost after that process
happens.
5o we understand that process i s
happening, that these applications through these
applications that that process is happening, that the
mi11 has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in
collecti ng data so that they too could move forward
wi th thei r proj ects. And we would encourage that i n
th'i s case, that these appl i cat'i ons be approved.
MR. G0BLE: Thank you, Mr. V,/ebb.
0kay. If there's no one else that wanted
31
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
L0
LL
L2
1.3
L4
15
L5
L7
L8
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
to speak, we don' t have anyone el se that s i gned up.
We're scheduled unti 1 9 o'c1ock. 5o what we'11 do
right now is, I'm going to go ahead and call a
recess. We'11 call a recess for let's see. Right
now the time is it's 7:42, Let's call a recess
until 8:L5 and see if anyone shows up.
For those that are here, you guys are
welcome to stay. You mi ght have more comment i n the
future. And we're going to be here for I guess the
next half hour to see 'i f anyone else wants to show up
and make comments. So I'm going to go ahead and call
a recess ri ght now, and we'11 take pretty much a
half-hour break.
(Recess from 7:42 p.m. to 8:15 p.m.)
MR. GOBLE: The time 'i s now 8:L5. We'11
go ahead and open back up the meet j ng. I t looks 1 i ke
no one e1 se has s i gned up to make publ i c comment . So
do any of you gentlemen who are here want to make
comment? 0kay.
I just want to let you guys know that
publ i c comment can be recei ved up to 5 o'c1ock on
Monday, l'4ay 10th. And like I sajd, you can either
e-maj 1 that to me at pgoble@utah. gov, or you can go
on our website and you can find our address and mail
i t to us. And so long as j t has the postmarked date
Ci tiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
32
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
L0
Lt
L2
1_3
L4
L5
L5
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
of that date , May L0th , v,Je' 11 accept i t .
I f orgot to thank V'i cky here. The person
who was hel p'i ng us today 'i s Vi cky 14cDan i el . I f orgot
to introduce her earlier today, so I wanted to do
that now.
S i nce we don ' t have anyone e1 se to make
publ i c comment , I 'm goi ng to go ahead and caI 1 th i s
meeti ng ended. So thi s meeti ng i s now adj ourned.
Thank you for attendi ng, and when we have one i n the
f uture, h,e'd 1i ke your presence agai n. So thank you
very much.
(Meeting adjourned at 8:L6 p.m.)
F**
Cit'iCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
33
L
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
1"1
L2
13
L4
L5
15
L7
L8
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
REPORTER' S CERTIFICATE
STATE OF UTAH
COUNTY OF SALT LAKE
)
)
)
SS
I , VICKY MCDAN] ELReporter and Notary Pubtic inUtah, do hereby certify:
Regi stered Meri t
and for the State of
That on May 4, 2010, the foregoi ngproceedings vvere reported by me in stenotype andthereafter transcribed, and that a fu11, true, andcorrect transcription of said proceedings 'i s setforth in the preceding pages.
WITNESS t"1Y HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL thi S 9th
day of May, 201"0.
VICKY 14cDANI EL ,Notary PublicResiding in 5att
CSR, RMR
Lake County
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
APPENDIX A
Written Comments Provided to Utah Division of Radiation Control
(See Attached Letter from Ms. Sarah M. Fields dated May 10, 2010)
APPENDIX B
Transcript of Public Hearing Held May 4. 2010 at Blanding. Utah
oo
APPENDIX C
Revised Radioactive Materials License No. UT 1900479
APPENDIX D
Revised Ground Water Discharge Permit No. UGW 370004
APPENDIX C
Revised Radioactive Materials License No. UT 1900479
DRC-04
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. Title 19, Chapter 3 and the Radiation Control Rules, Utah Administrative
Code R313, and in reliance on statements and representations heretofore made by the licensee
designated below, a license is hereby issued authorizing such licensee to transfer, receive, possess and
use the radioactive material designated below; and to use such radioactive material for the purpose(s)
and at the place(s) designated below. This licensee is subject to all applicable rules, and orders now or
hereafter in effect and to any conditions specified below.>F*{<***r<>f*i<*****{<{<{<{<*d<i<+**{<{<******{<r.{<{<{<{<i<*i<*****t**r(**,F*+rf*{<*****t{ot<rfi<r<****i<***r<*)k
Name
2. Address
I-ICENSEE
Denison Mines
(usA)
Corp.
6425Highway l9l
P.O. Box 809
Blanding, UT 8451
) 3, License Number UT1900479
) Amendment # 4
) * * X X X ,( * * {< * * i< i< * >! i< * * * * 'l< * * * * * * rk * r< {< {< {< {< i< *
4, Expiration Date
March 31,2007 (under timely renewal)
,< x * * {< * {< * * {< tr< rr * * {( * * i< * * * * * t * * * rk * {.,r >t( r< * * * >F
5. License Category 2-bl)
)*{<{<,r**i<****>Fi<x*>t<{<r(**{<x<**i<*{<**t*{<***<*r<*i<*x(****t***>krF****{<****t**{<{<{<r<>fi{<r<r<+tt**>F***
6. Radioactive material
(element and mass number)
Natural Uranium Any Unlimited
*X<*{<*****X*{<i<r<*i<**tF*i<*****{<{<{<{<r<*****i<{<*{<***>F{<t<>F'f*****r{<****X*{oFr<{<r(r(*<r<r<**********x
SECTION9: ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITIONS
7. Chemical and/or
physical form
8. Maximumquantitylicensee
may possess at any one time
9.1
9.2
The authorizedplace of use shall be the licensee's White Mesa uranium millingfacility,located
in San Juan County, Utah.
All written notices and reports to the Executive Secretary required under this license, with the
exception of incident and event notificaticjns under R3 I 3- I 5- 1202 and R3 1 3- 19-50 requiring
telephone notification, shall be addressed to the Executive Secretary, Utah Radiation Control
Board, Utah Department of Environmental Quality, 168 North 1950 West, P.O. Box 144850,
Salt Lake ciry, uT 84114-4850,
Incident and event notifications that require telephone notification shall be made to the
Executive Secretary at [phone] during normal business hours or after hours to the DEQ
Duty Officer at [phone].
The licensee shall conduct operations in accordance with statements, representations, and
conditions contained in the license renewal application submitted by letter to the NRC dated
9.3
DRC-04
PageZ of 20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #Uf1900479
Amendment
August 23, 7991 , as revised by submittals to the NRC dated January 13, 1992 and April 7 , 1992,
November 22, 1994, July 27,1995, December 13, 1996, and December 31, 1996, and January
30,1997 , which are hereby incorporated by reference, and for the Standby Trust Agreement, as
amended, except where superseded by license conditions below.
Whenever the word
requirement.
[Applicable NRC Amendment: 2]
g.4 A. The licensee may, without prior Executive Secretary-approval, and subject to the
conditions specified in Part B of this condition:
is used in the above referenced documents, it shall denote a
Make changes in the facility or process, as presented in the application.
Make changes in the procedures presented in the application.
Conduct tests or experiments not presented in the application.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
The licensee shall file an application for an amendment to the license, unless the
following conditions are satisfied.
The change, test, or experiment does not conflict with any requirement
specifically stated in this license, or impair the licensee's ability to meet all
applicable regulations.
There is no degradation in the essential safety or environmental commitments in
the license application or provided by the approved reclamation plan.
The change, test, or experiment is consistent with the conclusions of actions
analyzed and selected in the Environmental Assessment dated February 1997.
The licensee's determinations concerning Part B of this condition shall be made by a
"safety and Environmental Review Panel (SERP)." The SERP shall consist of a
minimum of three individuals. One member of the SERP shall have expertise in
management and shall be responsible for managerial and financial approval changes;
one member shall have expertise in operations and/or construction and shall have
responsibility for implementing any operational changes; and, one member shall be the
corporate radiation safety officer (CRSO) or equivalent, with the responsibility of
assuring changes conform to radiation safety and environmental requirements.
Additional members may be included in the SERP as appropriate, to address technical
aspects such as health physics, gtoundwater hydrology, surface-water hydrology,
specific earth sciences, and other technical disciplines. Temporary members or
permanent members, other than the three above-specified individuals, may be
consultants.
9.5
DRC-04
Page 3 of 20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #W)200479
Amendment
The licensee shall maintain records of any changes made pursuant to this condition until
license termination. These records shall include written safety and environmental
evaluations, made by the SERP, that provide the basis for determining that changes are
in compliance with the requirements referred to in Part B of this condition. The licensee
shall furnish, in an annual report to the Executive Secretary, a description of such
changes, tests, or experiments, including a summary of the safety and environmental
evaluation of each. In addition, the licensee shall annually submit to the Executive
Secretary changed pages to the Operations Plan and Reclamation Plan of the approved
license application to reflect changes made under this condition. Annual reports shall
address the previous calendar year and be submitted no later than March 31 each year.
The licensee's SERP shall function in accordance with the standard operating
procedures submitted by letter to the NRC dated June 10,1997.
[Applicable NRC Amendments: 3] [Applicable UDRC Amendment 3]
The licensee shall at all times maintain a financial surety, approved by the Executive Secretary,
consistent with UAC R313-24-4 (l0CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria 9 and 10, as incorporated by
reference), that is adequate to cover the estimated costs, accomplished by a third party, for
decommissioning and decontamination of the mill and mill site, reclamation of any tailings or
waste disposal areas, groundwater restoration as warranted, and the long-term surveillance fee.
The Licensee is prohibited from use and/or operation of any tailings disposal cell, orrelated new
permanent fixture or facility not already accounted for by the currently approved surety, without
prior submittal and Executive Secretary approval of written evidence of adequate financial
surety. Within 60 calendar days of Executive Secretary approval of a revised
reclamation/decommissioning plan, the licensee shall submit written evidence of an adequate
surety regarding the newly approved plan.
Annual updates to the surety amount, required by UAC R3l3-24-4 (10 CFR 40, Appendix A,
Criteria 9 and 10, as incorporated by reference), shall be submitted for Executive Secretary
approval by March 4 of each year. Within 30 calendar days of Executive Secretary approval of
an annual update of surety cost estimates, the licensee shall submit written evidence of adequate
surety for Executive Secretary approval.
Along with each proposed revision or annual update, the licensee shall submit supporting
documentation showing a breakdown of the costs and the basis for the cost estimates with
adjustments for inflation, maintenance of a minimum 15 percent contingency fee, changes in
engineering plans, activities performed and any other conditions affecting estimated costs for
site closure. The basis for the cost estimate is the current Executive Secretary-approved
reclamation/decommissioning plan or Executive Secretary-approved revisions to the plan and
9.6
DRC-04
Page 4 of 20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
ST]PPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT]!QE!Z!
Amendment
guidance contained in NUREG- 1620, "Standard Review Plan for the Review of a Reclamation
Plan for Mill Tailings Sites under Title tr of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of
r978;',
The currently approved surety instrument, a Performance Bond issued by National Union
Fire Insurance Company in favor of the Executive Secretary, and the associated Standby Trust
Agreement, shall be continuously maintained by the Licensee in an amount not less than the
amount currently approved by the Executive Secretary pursuant to the requirements of UAC
R3l3-24-4 (10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria 9 and 10 as incorporated by reference).
[Applicable NRC Amendments: 2, 3, 5, ]3, 15, 19,21,23,24,251
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: l][Applicable UDRC Amendment 3]
Standard operating procedures (SOPs) shall be established and followed for all operational
process activities involving radioactive materials that are handled, processed, or stored. SOPs
for operational activities shall enumerate pertinent radiation safety practices to be followed.
Additionally, written procedures shall be established for non-operational activities to include in-
plant and environmental monitoring, bioassay analyses, and instrument calibrations. An up-to-
date copy of each written procedure shall be kept in the mill area to which it applies.
All written procedures for both operational and non-operational activities shall be reviewed and
approved in writing by the radiation safety officer (RSO) before implementation and whenever a
change in procedure is proposed to ensure that proper radiation protection principles are being
applied. In addition, the RSO shall perform a documented review of all existing operating
procedures at least annually.
As per the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) negotiated by the Utah State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), the NRC
and Energy Fuels Nuclear [nc. (EFN) and ratified on August 20, 1979 and as amended on May
3, 1983 and substantially as implemented in NRC License SUA-1358.
Before engaging in any activity not previously assessed by the Executive Secretary, the licensee
shall administer a cultural resource inventory. All disturbances associated with the proposed
development will be completed in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (as
amended) and its implementing regulations, and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act
(as amended) and its implementing regulations.
In order to ensure that no unapproved disturbance of cultural resources occurs, any work
resulting in the discovery of previously unknown cultural artifacts shall cease. The artifacts shall
be inventoried and evaluated in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act (as
9.7
9.8
9.9
DRC.O4
Page 5 of 20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET License#W
Amendment
amended), and no disturbance shall occur until the licensee has received authorization from the
Executive Secretary to proceed.
The licensee shall avoid by project design, where feasible, the archaeological sites designated
"conffibuting" in the report submitted by letter to the NRC dated July 28, 1988. When it is not
feasible to avoid a site designated "contributing" in the report, the licensee shall institute a data
recovery program for that site based on the research design submitted by letter from C. E. Baker
of Energy Fuels Nuclear to Mr. Melvin T. Smith, Utah State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO), dated April 13, 1981.
The licensee shall recover through archaeological excavation all "contributing" sites listed in the
report which are located in or within 100 feet of borrow areas, stockpile areas, construction
areas, or the perimeter of the reclaimed tailings impoundment. Data recovery fieldwork at each
site meeting these criteria shall be completed prior to the start of any project related disturbance
within 100 feet of the site, but analysis and report preparation need not be complete.
Additionally, the licensee shall conduct such testing as is required to enable the Executive
Secretary to determine if those sites designated as "Undetermined" in the report and located
within 100 feet of present or known future construction areas are of such significance to warrant
their redesignation as "contributing." [n all cases, such testing shall be completed before any
aspect of the undertaking affects a site.
Archaeological contractors shall be approved in writing by the Utah SHPO. The Utah SHPO
will approve an archaeological contractor who meets the minimum standards of the State of
Utah as the principal investigator.
The licensee is hereby authorized to possess byproduct material in the form of uranium waste
tailings and other uranium byproduct waste generated by the licensee's milling operations
authorized by this license. Mill tailings shall not be transferred from the site without specific
prior approval of the Executive Secretary in the form of a license amendment, The licensee shall
maintain a permanent record of all transfers made under the provisions of this condition.
The licensee is hereby exempted from the requirements of R3l3- 15-902(5) for areas within the
mill, provided that all entrances to the mill are conspicuously posted in accordance with R3l3-
l5-902(5) and with the words, "Any area within this mill may contain radioactive material".
Release of equipment or packages from the restricted area shall be in accordance with the NRC
"Guidelines for Decontamination of Facilities and Equipment Prior to Release for Unrestricted
Use or Termination of Licenses for Byproduct, Source, or Special Nuclear Material," dated May
9.10
9.11
DRC-04
Page 6 of 20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT-1900479
Amendment
1987, or suitable alternative procedures approved by the Executive Secretary prior to any such
release.
Updated Reclamation Plan and Specifications - the licensee shall complete and submit an
updated Reclamation Plan and Specifications for the White Mesa Mill Facility, for Executive
Secretary approval on or before June 30, 2010. The plan and specifications shall include
information identified in this condition and information that is adequate for determining
financial surety requirements for the White Mesa Mill with all tailings management cells,
including Cells 4A and 48, and any new features or facilities that are constmcted in conjunction
with operation of Cells 44 and 48. Said Reclamation Plan and specifications shall be approved
by the Executive Secretary before disposal of any tailings or wastewater in Cell48. The updated
reclamation plan shall revise the information contained in the Reclamation Plan Revision 3.0
submitted to the NRC on July 17,2000, and an update to Rev 3.0 of the Reclamation Plan that
was prepared by the Licensee July 25, 2008, and approved on August 4,2008 (now referred to
as Rev. 3.1). After revision of Rev, 3.1, the updated Reclamation Plan shall be referred to as
Rev. 3.2, and shall contain the following information:
A. Information pertaining to the design and use of Cells 44, and 48 for tailings
management/disposal, including information on the design of the final top cap(s), and
design of the final cap side slopes including rock sizing and fill depth, and the estimated
quantities of materials required for final cover construction and final erosion protection,
adequate for assessing the needs of the associated financial surety based on currently
approved Cover design extended to include Cell 48;
B. Estimated costs for constructing the final cover system and for installing final
stormwater control systems for the tailings management cells, including Cells 4A and
48, following completion of tailings management operations;
Information on reclamation activities required for reclaiming any new permanent
fixtures or facilities that have been installed or are contemplated to be constructed in
conjunction with construction and operation of Cells 44, and 48, and the financial surety
needs associated therewith; and
Information demonstrating the adequacy of the long-term care fund with respect to
the White Mesa Mill Facility that includes consideration of Cells 44 and 48, the
final cover and drainage systems associated with these cells and any other new
structure or facility installed or contemplated to be consffucted in conjunction with
the construction and operation of these two cells.
fApplicable UDRC Amendment: 4]
C.
D,
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
DRC-04
PageT of20
License #AT1900479
Amendment
The10.1 A.
B.
SECTION 10: OPERATIONAL CONTROLS, LIMITS, AND RESTRICTIONS
production rate shall not exceed 4380 tons of yellowcake per year.
The licensee may not dispose of any material on site that is not "byproduct material," as
that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. Section 20la@)Q) (Atomic Energy Act of 1953,
Section I I (e)(2)).
The licensee may not receive or process any alternate feed material without first
applying for and obtaining approval of a license amendment. For any such proposal, the
licensee shall demonstrate that it will comply with Condition 10.1(B). Any such
demonstration shall include:
Demonstration of compliance with the NRC Regulatory Summary 2000-23
Recent Changes to Uranium Recovery Policy, November 30, 2000; and
Demonstration of compliance with the November 22, 1999 Protocol for
Determining Whether Alternate Feed Materials are Listed Hazardous Wastes, as
approved by the Utah Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste on December 7,
1999.
Maximum quantities of feed material stored on the mill site, including alternate feed
materials or other ores, shall not exceed the total material storage quantity found in the
currently approved mill surety pursuant to License Condition 9.5, without prior approval
of the Executive Secretary.
The licensee may not receive any alternate feed materials or other ores if those materials
would cause the facility to exceed the tailings cell disposal capacity established by the
currently approved reclamation plan and/or the annual surety report required by License
Conditions 9.11, and 9.5, respectively, without prior approval of the Executive
Secretary.
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 2]
10.2 All liquid effluents from mill process buildings, with the exception of sanitary wastes, shall be
returned to the mill circuit or discharged to the tailings impoundment.
10.3 Freeboard limits, stormwater and wastewater management for the tailings cells shall be
determined as follows:
A. The Freeboard limit for Cell I shall be set annually in accordance with the procedures
set out in Section 3.0 to Appendix E of the previously approved NRC license
(l)
(2)
DRC-04
Page 8 of 20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET License#W
Amendment
application, including the January 10, 1990 Drainage Report. Discharge of any surface
water or wastewater from Cell I is expressly prohibited,
The freeboard limit for Cells 3,41., and 48 shall be recalculated annually in accordance
with the procedures approved by the Executive Secretary Said calculations for freeboard
limits shall be submitted as part of the Annual Technical Evaluation Report (ATER), as
described in Condition 12.3 below.
The discharge of any surface water, stormwater or wastewater from Cells 3, 44, and 4B
shall only be through an Executive Secretary authorized spillway structure.
[Applicable NRC Amendment: 16] [Applicable UDRC Amendment 3] fApplicable
UDRC Amendment: 4l
10.4 Disposal of material and equipment generated at the mill site shall be conducted as described in
the licensee's submittals to the NRC dated December 12,1994 and May 23,1995, with the
following addition:
A. The maximum lift thickness for materials placed over tailings shall be less than 4-feet
thick. Subsequent lifts shall be less than 2-feet thick. Each lift shall be compacted by
tracking of heavy equipment, such as a Cat D-6, at least 4 times prior to placement of
subsequent lifts.
10.5 In accordance with the licensee's submittal to the NRC dated May 20, 1993, the licensee is
hereby authorized to dispose of byproduct material generated at licensed in-situ leach (ISL)
facilities, subject to the following conditions:
Disposal of ISL waste is limited to 5000 cubic yards from a single source.
All ISL contaminated equipment shall be dismantled, crushed, or sectioned to minimize
void spaces. Barrels containing waste other than soil or sludges shall be emptied into the
disposal area and the barrels crushed. Barrels containing soil or sludges shall be verified
by the Licensee to be full prior to disposal. Barrels not completely full shall be filled
with tailings or soil prior to disposal.
All ISL waste shall be buried in Cell No. 3 unless prior written approval is obtained
from the Executive Secretary for alternate burial locations.
D. AII disposal activities shall be documented and records thereof maintained on-site. The
documentation shall include descriptions of the ISL waste and the disposal locations, as
well as all actions required by this License condition.
B.
C.
A,
B.
C.
DRC-04
Page 9 of 20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SIJPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT1900,[9
Amendment
E. The licensee shall also submit for Executive Secretary approval a revised written
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for tSL disposal on or before December 1, 2010.
The revised SOP shall describe the documentation required for ISL disposal, which shall
include but is not limited to the following;
(l)The material disposal area must be located on a tailings beach area of the
disposal cell or on an area ofthe cell that is underlain by tailings sands;
The elevation of the material disposal area will not exceed the plane or grade of
the elevations of the uppermost flexible membrane liner of the tailings cell;
Such ISL byproduct material will be segregated from any mill material and
equipment disposed of in the cells pursuant to License Condition 10.4, and the
ISL byproduct material from each in-situ leach source will be segregated from
the byproduct material from all other in-situ leach sources;
Absence of void space inside barrels disposed, including physical verification
before disposal; and
Detailed engineering drawings which demonstrate:
(2)
(3)
(4)
(s)
b,
There arc at least 4 feet of
disposal area; and
The bottom ofeach disposal
or dikes of the tailings cell.
tailings sands under the bottom of each
area is located at least 12feetfrom the sides
F. The Licensee shall notify the Executive Secretary in writing at least 7 calendar days
prior to the proposed scheduled date for disposal of any byproduct material generated at
ISL facilities in the tailings cells.
An annual summary of the amounts of waste disposed of from off-site ISL generators
shall be sent to the Executive Secretary on or before November I of each calendar year.
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 4]
10.6 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materials from the
Corporation's Metropolis, Illinois, facility in accordance with the amendment
NRC dated June 15, 1993.
Allied Signal
request to the
10.7 The licensee is authorizedto receive and process source material from Allied Signal, Inc. of
Metropolis, Illinois, in accordance with the amendment request to the NRC dated September 20,
1996, and amended by letters to the NRC dated October 30, 1996 and November 11, 1996.
DRC-04
Page l0 of 20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #@,479
Amendment
10.8 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material, in accordance with the
amendment request to the NRC dated March 5,1997.
[Applicable NRC Amendments: I ]
10.9 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from Cabot Performance
Materials' facility near Boyertown, Pennsylvania, in accordance with the amendmentrequest to
the NRC dated April 3,7997, as amended by submittals to the NRC dated May 19, 1997 and
August 6,1997.
[Applicable NRC Amendments: 4]
10.10 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from the Ashland 2 Formerly
Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site, located near Tonawanda, New York,
in accordance with the amendment request to the NRC dated May 8, 1998, as amended by the
submittals to the NRC dated May 27,1998, June 3, 1998, and June 11, 1998.
[Applicable NRC Amendments: 6]
10.1 I The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from Cameco Corporation's
Blind River and Port Hope facilities, located in Ontario, Canada, in accordance with the
amendment request to the NRC dated June 4, 1998, and by the submittals to the NRC dated
September 14, 1998, September 16, 1998, September 25,1998, October 7, 1998, and October 8,
I 998.
However, the licensee is not authorized to receive or process from these facilities, the crushed
carbon anodes identified in these submittals, either as a separate material or mixed in with
material already approved for receipt or processing.
10.12 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from the Ashland 1 and
Seaway Area D Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site, located near
Tonowanda, New York, in accordance with statements, representations, and commitments
contained in the amendment request to the NRC dated October 15, 1998, as amended by letters
to the NRC dated November 23,1998, November 24,1998, December 23,1998, January I l,
1999, January 27,7999, and February 1,1999.
[Applicable NRC Amendment: I0]
10.13 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from the St. Louis Formerly
Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site, in accordance with statements,
representations, and commitments contained in the amendment request to the NRC dated March
2,1999, and as amended and supplemented by submittals dated June 21,1999:June29,1999
(2); andJuly 8, 1999. Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the St. Louis FUSRAP site,
the licensee must make a determination that adequate tailings space is available for the tailings
DRC-04
Page l1 of20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #llllgQQflg
Amendment
produced from the processing of this material. This determination shall be made based on a
SERP approved internal procedure.
[Applicable NRC Amendments: I 3, ] 4l
10.14 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from the Linde Formerly
Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site, in accordance with statements,
representations, and commitments contained in the NRC amendment request dated March 16,
2000, and as amended and supplemented by submittals dated April 26,2000, May 15, 2000,
June 16, 2000, June 19,2000, and June 23,2000.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Linde FUSRAP site, the licensee must make a
determination that adequate tailings space is available for the tailings produced from the
processing of this material. This determination shall be made based on a SERP-approved
internal procedure. Design changes to the cells or the reclamation plan require the licensee to
submit an amendment request for Executive Secretary review and approval.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Linde FUSRAP site, the licensee mustrequire
that the generator of the material certify that the material does not contain listed hazardous
waste as defined under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) per a Radioactive
Material Profi le Record.
[Applicable NRC Amendment: l4]
10.15 The licensee is authorizedto receive and process source material from the W.R. Grace site
located in Chattanooga, Tennessee, in accordance with statements, representations, and
commitments contained in the amendment request to the NRC dated April 12, 2000, as
amended and supplemented by submittals dated April 24,2000, April26,2000, May 5, 2000,
November 16, 2000, and December 18, 2000,
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the W.R. Grace site, the licensee must make a
determination that adequate tailings space is available for the tailings produced from the
processing of this material. This determination shall be made based on the SERP-approved
standard operating procedure for determination of tailings capacity. Design changes to the cells
or the reclamation plan require the licensee to submit an amendment request for Executive
Secretary review and approval.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the W.R. Grace site, the licensee must require that
the generator of the material certify that the material does not contain listed hazardous waste as
defined under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) per a Radioactive Material
Profile Record.
[Applicable NRC Amendment: 17]
DRC-04
Page 12 of 20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #W900472
10.16 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from the Heritage Minerals
Incorporated site, in accordance with statements, representations, and commitments contained in
the amendment request to the NRC dated July 5, 2000, and as supplemented by submittals dated" November 16, 2000, and December 18, 2000.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Heritage Minerals Incorporated site, the
licensee must make a determination that adequate tailings space is available for the tailings
produced from the processing of this material. This determination shall be made based on the
SERP-approved standard operating procedure for determination of tailings capacity. Design
changes to the cells or the reclamation plan require the licensee to submit an amendment request
for Executive Secretary review and approval.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Heritage Minerals Incorporated site, the
licensee must require that the generator of the material certify that the material does not contain
listed hazardous waste as defined under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
per a Radioactive Material Profile Record.
[Applicable NRC Amendment: l8]
10.17 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from the Molycorp site located
in Mountain Pass, California, in accordance with statements, representations, and commitments
contained in the amendment request to the NRC dated December 19, 2000, and supplemental
information in letters dated January 29,2001, February 2,2OOl, March 20,2OO7,August 15,
2001, October 17,2001, and November 16,2001.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Molycorp site, the licensee must make a
determination that adequate tailings space is available for the tailings produced from the
processing of this material. This determination shall be made based on a SERP-approved
internal procedure. Design changes to the cells or the reclamation plan require the licensee to
submit an amendment request for Executive Secretary review and approval.
[Applicable NRC Amendment: 20]
10.18 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from the Maywood site located
in Maywood, New Jersey, in accordance with statements, representations, and commitments
contained in the amendment requests to the NRC dated June 15, 2001 , June22,200l , August 3,
2001, and supplemented by letters dated November 19, 2001, December6, 2001, December 10,
2001, March 11,2002, and July 1,2002.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Maywood site, the licensee must make a
determination that adequate tailings space is available for the tailings produced from the
DRC-04
Page 13 of20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #W1900n9
Amendment
processing of this material. This determination shall be made based on a SERP-approved
internal procedure. If such determination requires the licensee to make design changes to the
cells or the reclamation plan, the licensee shall submit an amendment request for Executive
Secretary review and approval.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Maywood site, the licensee must require that
the generator of the material certify that the matedal does not contain listed hazardous waste as
defined under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) per a Radioactive Material
Profile Record.
[Applicable NRC Amendment: 22]
10. l9 The licensee is authori zed to receive and process source material from Ponds 2 and 3 of the
FMRI's Muskogee Facility located in Muskogee, Okalahoma, in accordance with statements,
representations, and commitments contained in the amendment requests and submittals to the
Executive Secretary dated March 7, 2005, June 22, 2005, and April 28, 2006.
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 2]
SECTION 11: MONITORING, RECORDING, AND BOOKKEEPING REQUIREMENTS
11.1 The results of sampling, analyses, surveys and monitoring, the results of calibration of
equipment, reports on audits and inspections, all meetings and training courses required by this
license and any subsequent reviews, investigations, and corrective actions, shall be documented.
Unless otherwise specified in the State of Utah regulations all such documentation shall be
maintained for a period of at least five (5) years.
ll.2 The licensee shall implement the effluent and environmental monitoring program specified in
Section 5.5 of the renewal application, as amended by the submittal to the NRC dated June 8,
1995, and as revised with the following modifications or additions:
Stack sampling shall include a determination of flow rate.
Surface water samples shall also be analyzed semiannually for total and dissolved U-nat,
Ra-226, and Th-230, with the exception of the Westwater Creek, which shall be
sampled annually for water or sediments and analyzed as above. A sediment sample
shall not be taken in place of a water sample unless a water sample was not available.
Groundwater sampling shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements in the
Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit No UGW370004.
A.
B.
C.
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
DRC-04
Page 14 of 20
License #W)900479
Amendment
With the exception of groundwater sampling the licensee shall utilize lower limits of
detection in accordance with Section 5 of the NRC Regulatory Guide 4.l4,asamended,
for analysis of effluent and environmental samples.
The inspections performed semiannually of the critical orifice assembly committed to in
the submittal to the NRC dated March 15, 1986, shall be documented. The critical
orifice assembly shall be calibrated at least every 2 years against a positive displacement
Roots meter to obtain the required calibration curve.
[Applicable NRC Amendment: 5][Applicable UDRC Amendment 3]
I 1.3 The licensee shall implement a monitoring program of the leak detection systems for disposal
Cells 4A and'4B in accordance with requirements of the Ground Water Discharge Permit. The
licensee shall implement a monitoring program of the leak detection systems for disposal Cells
7,2, and 3 as follows:
The licensee shall measure and record the "depth to fluid" in each of the tailings
disposal cell standpipes on a weekly basis. If sufficient fluid is present in the leak
detection system (LDS) of any cell, the licensee shall pump fluid from the LDS, to the
extent reasonably possible, and record the volume of fluid recovered. Any fluid pumped
from an LDS shall be returned to a disposal cell.
If fluid is pumped from an LDS, the licensee shall calculate the flow rate by dividing the
recorded volume of fluid recovered by the elapsed time since fluid was last pumped or
increases in the LDS fluid levels were recorded, whichever is the more recent. The
licensee shall document the results of this calculation.
Upon the initial pumping of fluid from an LDS, the licensee shall collect a fluid sample
and analyze the fluid for pH and the parameters listed in paragraph A of this license
condition. The licensee shall determine whether the LDS fluid originated from the
disposal cell by ascertaining if the collected fluid contains elevated levels of the
constituents listed in paragraph A of this license condition or has a pH level less than
5.0. If either elevated constituent levels or a pH less than 5.0 is observed, the licensee
shall assume that the disposal cell is the origin of the fluid.
If the LDS fluid is determined not to have originated from the disposal cell, the licensee
shall continue with weekly measurements of "depth to fluid" in the LDS standpipes. The
licensee shall confirm, on an annual basis, that fluid from the disposal cell has not
entered the LDS by collecting (to the extent possible) and analyzing an LDS fluid
sample for the above stated parameters.
D.
E.
A.
B.
DRC-04
Page 15 of20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #[f900479
Amendment
C. Upon indication that the LDS fluids originated from the disposal cell, the licensee shall
determine the flow rate through the liner by the calculation method in paragraph B of
this license condition. If the flow rate is equal to or greater than one gallon per minute,
the licensee shall:
Evaluate the cause of the liner distress and take appropriate and timely actions to
mitigate the leak and any consequent potential impacts;
Continue to measure and record LDS "depth to fluid" measurements weekly;
and
Notify the Executive Secretary by telephone within 48 hours, in accordance with
License Condition 9.2, and submit a written report within 30 calendar days of
notifying the Executive Secretary by telephone, in accordance with License
Condition 9.2.The written report shall include a description of the mitigative
action(s) taken and a discussion of the mitigative action results.
If the calculated flow rate is less than one gallon per minute, the licensee shall continue
with weekly measurements of "depth to fluid" in the LDS standpipes.
D. All sampling, analysis, and evaluation of LDS fluids shall be documented and retained
onsite until license termination for Executive Secretary inspection.
[Applicable NRC Amendment: 8] [Applicable UDRC Amendment 3] [Applicable UDRC
Amendment:41
Il.4 Annually, the licensee shall collect, during mill operations, a set of air samples covering eight
hours of sampling, at a high collection flow rate (i.e., greater than or equal to 40 liters per
minute), in routinely or frequently occupied areas of the mill. These samples shall be analyzed
for gross alpha. In addition, with each change in mill feed material or at least annually, the
licensee shall analyze the mill feed or production product for U-nat, Th-230,Ra-226, and Pb-
210 and use the analysis results to assess the fundamental constituent composition of air sample
particulates.
[Applicable NRC Amendment: 7]
I 1.5 Calibration of in-plant air and radiation monitoring equipment shall be performed as specified in
the license renewal application, under Section 3.0 of the "Radiation Protection Procedures
Manual," with the exception that in-plant air sampling equipment shall be calibrated at least
quarterly and air sampling equipment checks shall be documented.
ll.6 The licensee shall perform an annual ALARA audit of the radiation safety program in
accordance with the NRC Regulatory Guide 8.31.
(l)
(2)
(3)
DRC-04
Page 16 of20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #W1900479
Amendment
ll.7 Settlement Monitorins Standard Operating Procedure - the licensee shall submit for Executive
Secretary approval a written Settlement Monitoring Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on or
before December l,2OlO. The proposed SOP shall describe methods for monitoring vertical
settlement in the tailings management cell areas and for recording and documenting settlement
monitoring data and comparing such data to previous data to track potential settlement. All data
collected by the Licensee for these purposes shall be included in an annual report to be
submitted to the Executive Secretary, pursuant to License Condition 12.3.The SOP shall also:
A. Require that settlement monitors (e.g., settlement stands) be promptly installed
following placement of temporary cover over placed tailings;
Require installation of one or more representative settlement monitoring stand(s) above
each ISL source disposal area that has been closed to further disposal pursuant to
License Condition 10.5.A. There shall be at least one settlement monitoring stand for
each ISL source disposal area, estimated to be about22,500 square feet. Installation of
said settlement monitoring stand and initial elevation survey shall be completed by the
Licensee within 30 calendar days of completion of each ISL source disposal area. For
ISL source disposal areas or trenches completed before April 1 , 20 l0 the Licensee shall
install the required settlement stand(s) and complete the initial elevation survey prior to
June 1,2010;
Indicate that the licensee will utilize settlement monitoring devices and methods that are
resistant to shifting in their positions as a result of such forces as frost heave, erosion,
burrowing animals, or other environmental factors;
Include provisions to prevent man-caused damage to settlement monitoring devices,
including, but not limited to vehicle and construction traffic damage. Such measures
will include: l) all equipment, procedures, and provisions needed to protect said
settlement monitoring devices, 2) schedules for rapid verbal and written reporting of any
such damage, and 3) corrective actions taken or to be taken by the Licensee to replace
and/or repair said devices;
Indicate that settlement monitors will be:
B.
C.
D.
E.
(l)
(2)
(3)
Initially surveyed by a Utah Licensed Professional Land Surveyor within, 30
calendar days of installation;
Surveyed monthly; and
Surveyed annually by a Utah Licensed Land Surveyor. Review of the data and
an analysis shall be performed and certified by a Utah Licensed Professional
UTAH DIYISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
DRC-04
Page l7 of 20
License #UTl_900,179
Amendment
G.
Engineer and submitted annually as part of the ATER required by License
Condition 12.3;
Include procedures requiring that such settlement monitors be placed, surveyed,
mapped, and maintained; that corrective action and maintenance activities be performed
to maintain existing monitoring devices in a reliable, good working condition, as
needed; that the addition, surveying and mapping of new settlement monitoring devices
installed be documented; and that records be made of observations of site conditions as
they relate to the conditions at and in the vicinity of the installed monitoring devices;
Provide quantitative performance criteria and describe how such criteria will be used to
evaluate vertical movement;
Indicate that any settlement monitoring device that is irreparably damaged as a result of
environmental stresses or through man-caused contact, including but not limited to cell
construction or other operational equipment, shall be promptly replaced with an
identical or equivalent monitoring device; and provisions provided to guide the
interpretation of data from both the former and the replacement device;
Indicate that where survey evidence suggests that significant apparent movement in a
settlement monitor has occurred, in excess of the approved performance criteria, that the
departure(s) will be investigated and explained, and errors corrected and resolved in a
timely manner, subject to Executive Secretary approval;
Indicate that photographs shall be taken of the monitoring areas at least annually to
document site and device conditions. Additionally, the SOP shall indicate that
photographs shall be taken following any instances of unusually severe weather or
incidents involving equipment if they result in physical damage or disturbance to any
settlement monitoring device, or significant changes to the ground surface areas adjacent
to or surrounding a settlement or displacement monitoring device;
Include a list of records that will be prepared for documenting settlement data for each
settlement monitoring device and related site observations and activities; and
Indicate that results and records of settlement monitoring shall be submitted annually as
part of the ATER required by License Condition 12.3.
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 4]
I L8 Movement (Displacement) Monitoring Standard Operatins Procedure - the licensee shall submit
for Executive Secretary approval a written Movement Monitoring Standard Operating
Procedure (SOP) on or before December 1, 2010. The proposed SOP shall describe methods for
F.
H.
J.
K.
L,
DRC.04
Page 18 of 20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT198Q4Z9
Amendment
monitoring potential vertical and horizontal movements in the constructed dike portions of the
tailings management cells, and for recording and documenting displacement monitoring data
and comparing such data to previous data to track potential movement (displacement). All data
collected by the Licensee for these purposes shall be included in an annual report to be
submitted to the Executive Secretary, pursuant to License Condition 12.3. The SOP shall also:
Require that movement monuments be promptly installed following completion of
construction of cell dikes;
Indicate that the licensee will utilize movement monuments and monitoring methods
that are resistant to shifting in their positions as a result of such forces as frost heave,
erosion, burrowing animals, or other environmental factors;
Include an obligation for the Licensee to prevent man-caused damage to movement
monuments, including, but not limited to vehicle and construction traffic damage. Such
measures will include: l) all equipment, procedures, provisions need to protect said
settlement monitoring devices, 2) schedules forrapid verbal and written reporting of any
such damage, and 3) corrective actions taken or to be taken by the Licensee to replace
and/or repair said devices;
Indicate that movement monuments will be:
A.
B.
C.
D,
(1)Initially surveyed by a Utah Licensed Land Surveyor within 30 calendar days of
installation;
Surveyed semi-annually for the first three years following installation by a Utah
Licensed Land Surveyor.
Surveyed annually after the first three years by a Utah Licensed Land Surveyor
Subjected to accelerated monitoring conducted under certain circumstances, at a
frequency and in a manner approved by the Executive Secretary; and
Reviewed annually by a Utah Licensed Professional Engineer, who shall
perform and certify an analysis of all survey data. This analysis shall be
submitted pursuant to License Condition 12.3;
(2)
(3)
(4)
(s)
E.Include procedures requiring that such movement monuments be placed, surveyed,
mapped, and maintained; that corrective action and maintenance activities be performed
to maintain existing movement monuments in a reliable, good working condition, as
needed; that the addition, surveying and mapping of new movement monuments
installed be documented; and that records be made of observations of site conditions as
they relate to the conditions at and in the vicinity of the installed monuments;
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
DRC-04
Page 19 of 20
License #W2
Amendment
G.
Provide quantitative performance criteria and describe how such criteria will be used to
evaluate movements (displacements);
Indicate that any movement monument that is irreparably damaged as a result of
environmental stresses or through man-caused contact, including but not limited to cell
construction or other operational equipment, shall be promptly replaced with an
identical or equivalent movement monument; and provisions provided to guide the
interpretation of data from both the former and the replacement device;
Include a list of records that will be prepared for documenting movement (displacement)
data for each movement monument and related site observations and activities; and
L Indicate that results and records of movements (displacements) shall be submitted
annually as part of the ATER required by License Condition 12.3.
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 4]
SECTION 12: REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
12.1 DELETED by NRC Amendment 13.
[Applicable NRC Amendment: l3]
12,2 The licensee shall submit a detailed decommissioning plan to the Executive Secretary at least
twelve (12) months prior to planned final shutdown of mill operations that includes a detailed
Quality Assurance Plan. The plan will be in accordance with NRC Regulatory Guide 4.15,
"Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs" and NUREG-1575, "Multi-Agency
Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM)" or equivalent most current
guidance.
[Applicable NRC Amendment: l3] [Applicable UDRC Amendment: I ]
I Applicable UDRC Amendment : 2 ]
12.3 Annual Technical Evaluation Report (ATER) - the licensee shall submit an ATER for
Executive Secretary approval no later than November 15, of each year, to coincide with the
annual freeboard calculation date of November I'r of each year when using the new Freeboard
Calculation Method, as described in the letter from David A. Rupp of the Utah Division of Radiation
Control to Mr. David C. Frydenlund of Denison Mines (USA) Corp, dated Apil29,20l0. Each
ATER shall incorporate all documents and attachments, including applicable updates to
previously submitted documents with attachments that support information presented in the
ATER, including, but not limited to maps, drawings, tables, and figures. The licensee shall
include, as part of the ATER, results of tailings cell temporary cover settlement and dike
displacement monitoring activities. The content of the tailings cell temporary cover
settlement and displacement monitoring program related information shall include those
records required under the Settlement Monitoring and Movement Monitoring SOPs (License
F.
H.
UTAII DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
DRC-04
Page 20 of 20
License#W
Amendment
Conditions 1 L7 and I 1.8), as approved by the Executive Secretary,
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 4]
UTAH RADIATION CONTROL BOARD
Q, e :-'
/ Date t
APPENDIX D
Revised Ground Water Discharge Permit No. UGW 370004
t
Permit No. UGW370004
STATE OF UTAH
DTVISION OF WATER QUALITY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-4870
GROUND WATER DISCHARGE PERMIT
In compliance with the provisions of the Utah Water Quality Act, Title 19, Chapter 5, Utah Code
Annotated 1953, as amended, the Act,
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
Independence Plaza, Suite 950
1050 17th Street
Denver, Colorado 80265
is granted a ground water discharge permit for the operation of a uranium milling and tailings
disposal facility located approximately 6 miles south of Blanding, Utah. The facility is located on a
tract of land in Sections28,29,32, and 33, 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 l\4a1ch_! 20-l_0 (This Permit is in Timely Renewal)
Application for Permit Renewal was received September 7,2009
Signed this _ day of _,2010
Co-Executive Secretary
Utah Water Quality Board
Table of Contents
PART I. SPECIFIC PERMIT CONDITIONS............ .............. I
A. GnorxDWATERCressmcerroN.......... ....................... I
B. BecrcRor.lNDWerenQuerrrv... ............... I
C. Penunlnrarrs .........2
1. Ground Water Compliance Limits.... ......................2
2. Tailings Cell Operations.......... .............2
3. Prohibited Discharges .........2
D. DrscueRce Mwur,rzATroN AND BEST Aveu,est,n Tncrryorocy SrANDARDS................... 6
1. DMT Design Standards for Existing Tailings Cells I ,2, and 3................,................... 6
2. Existing Tailings Cell Construction Authorized ....................... 8
3. Existing Facility DMT Performance Standards ...... 8
4. Best Available Technology Requirements for New Construction.............................. 11
5. BAT Design Standards for Tailings Cell 4A............ .............. 11
6. BAT Perfornance Standards for Tailings Cell 4A............ .....14
7. Definition of I le.(2) Waste ................l4
8. Closed Cell Performance Requirements ...............14
9. Facility Reclamation Requirements........... ........... 15
10. Stormwater Management and Spill Control Requirements............ .......... l5
I 1. Requirements for Feedstock Material Stored Outside the Feedstock Storage Area... l5
12. BAT Design Standards for Tailings Cell 48 ............ .............. 16
1 3. BAT Performance Standards for Tailings Cell 48 ......... ... .... . I 9
E. Gnotxo Wersn CowlteNcE AND TpcnNorocy PERFoRMANCE MoNIToRING............. 19
1. Routine Groundwater Compliance Monitoring .......... ............ l9
2. Groundwater Monitoring: Monitoring Wells MW-20 and MW-22 .....-.....................21
3. Groundwater Head Monitoring ...........21
4. Groundwater Monitoring Well Design and Construction Criteria..............................21
5. Monitoring Procedures for Wells... .....22
6. White Mesa Seep and Spring Monitoring .............22
7. DMT Performance Standard Monitoring ..............23
8. BAT Perforrnance Standard Monitoring ...............24
9. On-site Chemicals Inventory.. .............25
10. Tailings Cell Wastewater Quality Monitoring ......25
I l. Groundwater Monitoring Modifications.............. ...................26
12. BAT Performance Standard Monitoring ...............26
F. Rrponrnric Rreum.rmNTs........... ...,...,.,..27
1. Routine Groundwater Monitoring Reports ...........27
2. Routine DMT Performance Standard Monitoring Report ......28
3. Routine BAT Perforrnance Standard Monitoring Reports..... ...................29
4. DMT and BAT Performance Upset Reports..... ....29
5. Other Information .............29
6. Groundwater Monitoring Well As-Built Reports ...................29
7. White Mesa Seeps and Springs Monitoring Reports .............. 30
8. Chemicals Inventory Report ............... 31
9. Tailings Cell Wastewater Quality Reports..... ....... 31
10. Revised Hydrogeologic Report ...........31
11. Annual Slimes Drain Recovery Head Report.............. ........... 31
G. OUToFCoMpLTANCE SrATUS................ ......................32
1. Accelerated Monitoring Status... .........32
2. Violation of Permit Limits .,..........,.....32
3. Failure to Mai#DMT or BAT Required by Permit 324. Facility Out of Compliance Status ...... 33
H. CowUANCE Scnrour-p RBeum.pprpNTS. .......... ......... 33
1. On-site Chemicals Inventory Report..,.... .............. 332. Infiltration and Contaminant Transport Modeling Work Plan and Report...... ...........34
3. Plan for Evaluation of Deep Supply Well WW-2................ ..................... 354. New Decontamination Pad........... ......365. Existing Decontamination Pad............ .................. 36
6. Installation of New Groundwater Monitoring Wells .............. 36
7. Background Groundwater Quality Report for New Monitoring We11s........ ..........,....37
8. Revised BAT Operations and Monitoring Plan.......... ............ 38
9. Cell 48 As-Built Report....... ............... 38
10. Additional Hydrogeologic lnvestigation and Report .............. 39
I 1. Corrections to Engineering Drawing Sheet 6 of 8 .................. 39
PART rr. REPORTTNG REQUrREMENTS................ ...........40
A. RrpnpsENTATtvE Setwrntc. .....................40
B. ANeryrrcAl PRocrnunps................ ........ 40
C. PeNerrmsFoRTeNppnNc .....40
D. Rrponrn{G oF MoNrroRrNG Rrsurrs ....... 40
E. CouplreNcE ScHEDULES.............. ............ 40
F. AoprnoNel MoNIToRING BY TI{E PERMITTEE ............ 40
G. Rrconos CoNTENTS................ ..................40
H. RrrrNrroNoFRpconos.. ........41L Norrcn oF NoNCoMpLTANCE R_epoRrNc .................... 4lJ. OTSEnNoNCoMpLLANCe RppoRruvc............... ...........41
K. INspscuoN AND ENrRy....... ...................... 41
PART III. COMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITIES .,.,,,.,.....,....42
A. DuryrocoMply ....................42
B. PENALTES FoR VToLATToNS oF PERMTT CoNomoNS ................ ....42
C. Npsp ro Herr oR REDUCE Acrrvrry Nor A DppENsr ..................42
D. Dury ro MTTTGATE .................. ..................42
E. PRoprR OprReloN AND MArNTENANCE....... ..............42
A. PreNNEo CueNcrs .................43
B. ANucpetspNoNcoMpLr.ANCE .................43
C. PpnirrrrAcrroNs... ...................43
D. Dury ro REAppLy............... ...................... 43
E. Dury To PRoVIDE INFoRMATIoN ......... ..,.,43F. Ornpn INroRueuoN............. .................... 43
G. SrcNeronv RrqurnrMENTS ......................43
H. PENALTTES FoR FersrprcerroN oF RrpoRrs ................ 44I. AverlesLrry oF RrpoRrs... .....................44J. PnoprRry Rrcnrs ...................44
K. Snvrnesrlrry.......... ................44
L. TneNsrrRs ............44
M. Srerp Lews ..........45
N. RroprNpR PRovrsroNs........... ................... 45
List of Tables
Table l. Ground Water Classification ............. ....... 1
Table 2. Groundwater Compliance Limits............... ................. 3
Table 3. DMT Engineering Design and Specifications ............ 6
Table 4. Feedstock Storage Area Coordinates ...... l0
Table 5. Approved Tailings Cell 4A Engineering Design and. Specifications...... ...... 1 1
Table 6. Approved Tailings Cell 48 Engineering Design and Specifications ............ 16
Table7.GroundwaterMonitoringReportingSchedule....'.'........
lll
Q* r.A& r.B
Permit No. UGW370004
PART I. SPECIFIC PERMIT CONDITIONS
A. Gnotxo WarrR CressmcerloN - the groundwater classification of the shallow aquifer under
the tailings facility has been determined on a well-by-well basis, as defined in Table l, below:
l) N=NumberofSamples
2) Based on historic total dissolved solids (TDS) data provided by the Permittee for period between October, 1979 and December, 200?. This
data was obtained from the Permittee's background groundwater quality reports dated October 2007 and April 30, 2008.
Background concentrations of uranium in well MW-18 (55.1 pgll) and thallium in MW-19 (2.1 p/L) exceed rhe CWQS,30 p{Land2.0
pgll-, respectively. Therefore these wells have been classified as Class lll groundwater rather than Class ll groundwater.
Wells MW-20 and MW-22 are not point of compliance monitoring wells, but instead are groundwater head monitoring wells as per Part 1.E.2.
Average concentrations and standard deviations for wells MW-20 and MW-22 were calculated by DRC staff from data from the DUSA 2d
and 3d Quarters of 2008 Routine Groundwater Monitoring Reports.
Background concentration of manganese in well MW-25 (1,806 pgil) exceeds the CWQS, therefore wetl MW-25 has been classified as Classlll groundwater rather than Class II groundwater.
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.l).
Background concentrations of uranium in well MW-27 Qa p!L) and selenium in MW-3 I (11 pelL) exceed the GWQS, therefore these wells
have been classified as Class lll groundwater rather than Class II groundwater.
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 l.E. l.
B. BecrcRoLIND Wemn QUALITY - based on groundwater samples collected through June 2007 for
existing wells (MW-l, MW-2, MW-3, MW-5, MW-l1, MW-12, MW-14, MW-l5, MW-17,
MW-l8, 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), theupperboundary
of background groundwater quality is determined on a well-by-well basis, pursuant to
I
3)
4)
s)
6)
'7)
8)
Table 1. Ground Water Classification
Class II Groundwater
Average TDS (mgll)
DUSA Data
Class III Groundwater
Average TDS (mg/L)
DUSA Data
Well
ID N(r)
Average
Concentration(2)
Standard
Deviation(2)Well ID 111(t)
Average
Concentration(2)
Standard
Deviation(2)
MW-1 7',|1.273 93 MW-2 77 3.0s0 252
MW-5 82 2,058 170 MW-3 78 5.217 263
MW-ll 7l t.844 178 MW-I2 6l 3.894 241
MW-30 10 t,7 45 87 MW-14 5l 3.592 t76
MW.15 4',1 3.857 243
MW-17 22 4,444 32r
MW-18"'18 2,605 297
MW-l9("22 ) /.<1 900
MW-20(*,2 5.610 57
MW -22\*)2 7.365 361
MW-3A 9 5.547 129
MW-23 10 3.443 244
MW-24 10 4,116 tt7
MW-25("11 2.843 67
MW-26("t2 3,155 65
MW-27\')t0 I "019 28
MW-28 ll 3,677 87
MW-29 8 4,380 27
MW-31(10 t,265 50
MW-32(t2 3,669 247
Footnotesl
Part I.B & I.C
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. Pprurr Lnarrs - the Permittee shall comply with the following permit limits:
L Ground Water Compliance Limits - contaminant concentrations measured in each monitoring
well shall not exceed the Ground Water Compliance Limits (GWCL) defined in Table 2,
below. Groundwater quality at the site must at all times meet all the applicable GWQS and
ad hoc GWQS defined in R3l7-6 even though this permit does not require monitoring for
each specific contaminant.
2. Tailings Cell Operations - only I l.e.(2) by-product material authorized by Utah Radioactive
Materials License No. UT-2300478 (hereafter License) shall be discharged to or disposed of
in the tailings ponds.
3. Prohibited Discharges - discharge of other compounds such as paints, used oil, antifreeze,
pesticides, or any other contaminant not defined as I le.(2) material is prohibited.
4
...
e
{
q)
U€qU
blo
o\q
Fi
o
oU
\o
}j
o
}H
2V
a-
e,{
=>uzo
JU
F
a!
rlo
C)
(d
oO
l<C)!
B
otrU
6iop
CgF
o>
o5
N
o
5
)
!
N=a?:
ec ;
a&
s-
q)\
=
c-
ao{s{
q)
E
N N Nr+
cl
N €
Oa*r <,N $o,a
-a
N
S
Ue
$
b0o
\$
c1
abi
s:{
\t
oa.\.a
U
Po
U
\o
nN N
!N
v,)N V
!a
q)
o
v?€
.t\o
N \oo\
artr
EC
r.lO
=
V)a{a V N rti
V
la\a r\c iaia
mr !t at Ui r lrir 6 r
d
nF V ra
N d
n [.)€0
d ra r
vla
ra\o
re!t N ol
oC
>1zY
-.)O
()
s t]r
d
,1
N .l c.l
nN€N r i \o v?o $nN
tf
N{,N \r c.l r r q N N
iaa
Ih\e
V €N dFo\
€
o\
o\trdE
ZC
..1()
>N ^i a o
\o
J(x r
!N€n N N V*al nN 6i o
l,
E
I€!t€
\E)tq\<f
$
€=
zL)
.lO>
v)N N 5 r<t a r
r€V,q$t
NnN
v'1
N ^;
\oi n N
in*
€
F ia ud
F(
toEd!
>-
JQ>o
No\6t\c)N ci
in\o €
x
tr nr \o N N €
€
$
\o
sf
t,i
F v n
vl€
str,l
a.l€
\o
6i€o
N
3
!x
,AE
zL)
J()
>
FF rfi ind t,)ia\o n€VV
iar
\oo6 N |ad r C
U?\o n |a
F n v V ra ra V d h h
V*
tl
Nt,ra Fi
a
€F
!f,=d!
.(j
J(-)r r nN \o N\o r
r
r N N r*
g\O
N r O ql
6i N
rr')
6
Iia\o
\c r c\n
.a=N!
=*z,U >€N 6i (r N N *N *r \o09
N
r')O
N ^i
r oi
n6
|a€
d
!dV r€
rE
,*eL)
(a V c?
N
V{€r R
o,N o €
€9€tt al
?N ol
nN V
n€
oa
N x€x
Nn€
r;
,O st ,$o r *
v?€
I\o
\t
G
c
z
cE
F
z
z+oI
z
o
o
,
occ
E6O
o
)
(0
U o Ed3
o
oa
d
2
7
Io
o
:o
oz
E
Ec
c(r.
o
U)
(€
F
tr
f
dad o
N
d
B?
p
o
ooo
o
EN
0
Vt!
o
o
6
ca
N
o
oti
oF
d(,
fc
cI
s
o
d
o
o
Q
a
o
o
oo
otr
a!
odz
!!
.EoE
9gll_oF
q
o
o2
6o
otro
X
-i
U)
o
r5ot!
Ja
o
:,.
b
c
.E
5(-
3hc
o
,6
v)
Jh
E;oF
El()
Fo
U'
J
(.)o
(d
tro(-)
LrC)ICg
B
tr)
lro
E,0))tr
o(-)
N
q)
-o(0F
3
o i6lro__!+q-.: a o olg e6H= Fgs:O o >'E:5'60 b'E € co . o 6 .rd 60 ? rnfi E ; E5 E; ^E d E? E.= E xE fi 9; i! E EEE E;EEE+ *E i3.E? = iSpEe O EXJE6 d;- o3. E.H3H;; i il;c,1 E HEHejr O r U- Bo$ B* FIET*
*,,e; €BE€;rBEi 8gE;B
=iEf; EEgE=3;gi Yd5€;oE E 9 Erio 9ql
E* EE $:"r Ei
TS EE *5,E EnE= E; A-E3ts=a b: d Yp o 55
EE"EE E{:;SE.E";o; !oEE>
}EEE EE [*it
E;TE E}F=i?;:ii€ flrdE>2:€=3 fl:F5$eBsEE-tE:]=E
E*EE s€F ei51:FgE"rtgE€.c=eE
H;3it s? ri$ g
:HTE'EE5ET}}r E:a; I:.Hi7EgEssE;:i+ce
iEg:E[EE=rEY=\zH6otrt.irihsE*acl E€ od=-sBqT5r4-a€-I>S
EEgE:5iEEsgE:3EE3 B 3E+;E&
EEEIaEg!iIH
iiEEiEEEEgso E; dur 3 E E-;-jE
a+t'E;9E t i g€-
{:k"s.E0;fi;E€
E?Ee"Er!!=E$ErIcEtffsE:AE*H'EEEE=AE
E:;E;er+s$€
?eeeeEEEsteA'o'o'o 6Z;;a EE(f 9 C C a 9,))z.d,tLarStEE EHts+np5l )<<<<(,oo >xo
EIot ^^^El -N6$hOf€
Part I.D
Permit No. UGW370004
D. DtscHeRGE MINMzATIoN AND BEST Avenesm TrcrNotocy STANDARDS - the tailings
disposal facility must be built, operated, and maintained according to the following Discharge
Minimization Technology (DMT) and Best Available Technology (BAT) standards:
1. DMT Design Standards for Existing Tailings Cells 1 ,2, and 3 - shall be based on existing
construction as described by design and construction information provided bythe Permittee,
as summaized in Table 3 below for Tailings Cells 1,2, and3:
l) D'Appolonia Consulting Engineers, Inc., June, 1979, "Engineers Report Tailings Management Systern White Mesa Uranium Project
Blanding, Utah Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. Denver, Colorado", unpublished consultants report, approximately 50 pp.,2 figures, l6 sheets,2
appendices.
D'Appolonia Consulting Engineers, Inc., February, 1982, "Construction Report Initial Phase - Tailings Management System White Mesa
Uranium Project Blanding, Utah Energy Fuels Nuclear, lnc, Denver, Colorado", rurpublished consultants report, approximately 7 pp., 6 tables,
l3 figures, 4 appendices.
D'Appolonia Consulting Engineers, lnc., May, l98l , "Engineer's Report Second Phase Design - Cell 3 Tailings Management Systan White
Mesa Uranium Project Blanding, Utah Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. Denver, Colorado", unpublished consultants report, approximately 20 pp., I
figure, 5 sheets, and 3 appendices.
Energy Fuels Nuclear, lnc., March, I 983, "Construction Report Second Phase Tailings Management System White Mesa Uranium Project
Energy Fuels Nuclear, lnc.", unpublished company report, l8 pp., 3 tables, 4 figures, 5 appendices.
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 native
granular materials with a 3:1 slope, a 20-foot crest width, and a crest elevation of
about 5,620 ft above mean sea level (amsl). A dike of similar design was constructed
on the east margin of the pond, which forms a continuous earthen structure with the
south dike. The remaining interior slopes are cut-slopes at 3:1 grade.
Liner System - including a single 30 mil PVC flexible membrane liner (FML)
constructed of solvent welded seams on a prepared sub-base. Top elevation of the
FML liner was 5,618.5 ft amsl on both the south dike and the north cut-slope. A
protective soil cover layer was constructed immediately over the FML with a
thickness of l2-inches on the cell floor and l8-inches on the interior sideslope.
irushed Sandstone Underlay - immediately below the FML a nominal 6-inch thick
layer of crushed sandstone was prepared and rolled smooth as a FML sub-base layer.
Beneath this underlay, native sandstone and other foundation materials were graded
to drain to a single low point near the upstream toe of the south cross-valley dike.
Inside this layer, an east-west oriented pipe was installed to gather fluids at the
upstream toe of the cross-valley dike.
2)
l)
2)
3)
Table 3. DMT En lllv9l tt Desisn and Soecifications
Tailings
Cell
Report
Tvoe Ensineerins Reoort Desisn Fizures
Construction
Specifications
Cell I Design June, 1979 D'Appolonia
Consulting Engineers, lnc (l)Appendix A, Sheets 2,4,8,
9,12-15
Appendix B
Cell2 Design June, 1979 D'Appolonra
Consultins Ensineers. lnc (r)
Appendix A, Sheets 2,4,7-
10. l2-15
Appendix B
As-Built February, I 982 D'Appolonia
Consultins Enpineers- lnc (2)
Figures l, 2, and I 1 N/A
Cell3 Design May, l98l D'Appolonia
Consulting Engineers, lnc (3)
Sheets 2-5 Appendix B
As-Built March, 1983 Energy Fuels
Nuclear, Inc. (o)
Figures 1-4 N/A
Footnotes:
Q*,,
Permit No. UGW370004
b)Tailings Cell 2 - which consists of the following major design elements:
1) Cross-valley Dike - constructed at the south margin of Cell 2 of native granular
materialswitha3:1slope,a20-footcrestwidth,andcrestelevationofabout5,6l5ft
amsl. The east and west interior slopes consist of cut-slopes with a 3:1 grade. The
Cell I south dike forms the north margin of Cell 2,with a crest elevation of 5,620 ft
amsl.
2) Liner System - includes a single 30 mil PVC FML liner constructed of solvent
welded seams on a prepared sub-base, and overlain by a slimes drain collection
system. Top elevation of the FML liner in Cell2 is 5,615.0 ft and 5,613.5 ft amsl on
the north and south dikes, respectively. Said Cell2 FML liner is independent of all
other disposal cell FML liners. Immediately above the FML, a nominal 12-inch (cell
floor) to 18-inch (inside sideslope) soil protective blanket was constructed of native
sands from on-site excavated soils.
3) Crushed Sandstone Underlay - immediatelybelow the FML a nominal 6-inch thick
layer of crushed sandstone was prepared and rolled smooth as a FML sub-base layer.
Beneath this underlay, native sandstone and other foundation materials were graded
to drain to a single low point near the upstream toe of the south cross-valley dike.
tnside this layer, an east-west oriented pipe was installed to gather fluids at the
upstream toe of the cross-valley dike.
4) Slimes Drain Collection System immediately above the FML a nominal 12-inch thick
protective blanket layer was constructed of native silty-sandy soil. On top of this
protective blanket, a network of 1.S-inch PVC perforated pipe laterals was installed
on a grid spacing interval of about 50-feet. These pipe laterals gravity drain to a 3-
inch diameter perforated PVC collector pipe which also drains toward the south dike
and is accessed from the ground surface via a 24-inch diameter, vertical non-
perforated HDPE access pipe. Each run of lateral drainpipe and collector piping was
covered with a 12 to 18-inch thick berm of native granular filter material. At cell
closure, leachate head inside the pipe network will be removed via a submersible
pump installed inside 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 3:1 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 :O mit 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 Cell3 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)
3.
Part I.D
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
constructed of native sands from on-site excavated soils (70%) and dewatered and
cyclone separated tailings sands from the mill (30%). On top of this protective
blanket, a network of 3-inch PVC perforated pipe laterals was installed on
approximately 5O-foot centers. This pipe network gravity drains to a 3-inch
perforated PVC collector pipe which also drains toward the south dike, where it is
accessed from the ground surface by a l2-inch diameter, inclined HDPE access pipe.
Each run of the 3-inch lateral drainpipe and collector pipe was covered with a 12 to
l8-inch thick berm of native granular filter media. At cell closure, leachate head
inside the pipe network will be removed via a submersible pump installed inside the
12-inch diameter inclined access pipe.
Existing Tailings Cell Construction Authoized - tailings disposal in existing Tailings Cells
1,2, and 3 is authorizedby 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 ofthis Permit, and issuance of
a construction permit.
Existing Facility DMT Performance Standards - the Permittee shall operate and maintain
certain mill site facilities and the existing tailings disposal cells to minimize the potential for
wastewater release to groundwater and the environment, including, but not limited to the
following additional DMT compliance measures:
a) DMT Monitoring Wells at Tailings Cell 1 - at all times the Permittee shall operate and
maintain Tailings Cell I to prevent groundwater quality conditions in any nearby
monitoring well from exceeding any Ground Water Compliance Limit established in
Table 2 of this Permit.
b) Tailings Cells 2 and 3 - including the following performance criteria:
1) Slimes Drain Maximum Allowable Head - the Permittee shall at all times maintain
the average wastewater recovery head in the slimes drain access pipe to be as low as
reasonably achievable (ALARA) in each tailings disposal cell, in accordance with the
currently approved DMT Monitoring Plan.
2) Monthly Slimes Drain Recovery Test - the Permittee shall conduct a monthly slimes
drain recovery test at each tailings cell slimes drain that meets the following
minimum requirements:
i. Includes a duration of at least 9O-hours, as measured from the time that pumping
ceases, and
Part I.D
Permit No. UGW370004
ii. Achieves a stable water level at the end of the test, as measured by three
consecutive hourly water level depth measurements, with no change in water
level, as measured to the nearest 0.01 foot.
3) Annual Slimes Drain Compliance - shall be achieved when the average annual
wastewater recovery elevation in the slimes drain access pipe, as determined pursuant
to the currently approved DMT Monitoring Plan, meets the conditions in Equation 1,
below:
Equation 1:
[IEr+lEy-1+)Ey-21l[Nr+Ny-r*Nr-zl<[IEy-r+lEy-z+fEy-:]/[Ny-r+Ny-z+Ny-rJ
Where:
IE, : Sum of all monthly slimes drain tailings fluid elevation measurements that meet the test
performance standards found in Part I.D.3(bX2), 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).
IEv-r Sum of all SDRE measurements made in the year previous to the calendar year of
interest.
IEy-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(bX2), conducted during the calendar year of interest.
Nv-r : Total'number of SDRE tests that meet the test performance standards found in Part
I.D.3(b)(2), conducted in the year previous to the calendar year of interest.
Ny-z: Total number of SDRE tests that meet the test performance standards found in Part
I.D.3(bX2), 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 of interest.
Prior to January l,20l3,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 (risht side)
E,_r E"-r E"-r N.-'N,-z N-.
2010 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009
20tt 2010 2009 2009 2010 2009 2009
2012 201 I 2010 2009 20tt 2010 2009
Failure to satisfu conditions in Equation 1
compliance with this Permit. For Cell 3, this
de-watering operations.
shall constitute DMT failure and non-
requirement shall apply after initiation of
c)
d)
e)
Part I.D
Permit No. UGW370004
Maximum Tailings Waste Solids Elevation - upon closure of any tailings cell, the
Permittee shall ensure that the maximum elevation of the tailings waste solids does not
exceed the top of the FML liner.
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-foot freeboard at all times. Under no circumstances shall the water level in
the pond exceed an elevation of 5,624 feet amsl. In the event that the wastewater
elevation exceeds this maximum level, the Permittee shall remove the excess wastewater
and place it into containment in Tailings Cell 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 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 LD.l 1. At the time of mill site closure, the
Permittee shall reclaim and decommission the Feedstock Storage Area in compliance
with an approved Reclamation Plan. The Permittee shall maintain a minimum 4-foot
wide buffer zone on the inside margin of the Feedstock Storage Area between the storage
area fence and the Feedstock which shall be absent of feed material in order to assure that
materials do not encroach on the boundary of the storage area.
e4.
Corner Northins (ft)Eastins (ft)
Northeast 323.59s 2,580,925
Southeast 322.140 2.580.920
Southwest 322.140 2.580.420
West I 322,815 2.580.410
West 2 323,040 2,580,085
West 3 323,120 2,580,08s
West 4 323.315 2,580,285
West 5 323.415 2,579,990
Northwest 323.600 2-579-990
Footnote:
l) Approximate State Plane Coordinates beginning from the extreme northeast corner and progressing clockwise around
the feedstock area (from 6D2/01 DUSA Response, Attachment K, Site Topographic Map, Revised June, 2001 .)
g) Mill Site Chemical Reagent Storage - for all chemical reagents stored at existing storage
facilities and held for use in the milling process, the Permittee shall provide secondary
containment to capture and contain all volumes of reagent(s) that might be released at
any individual storage area. Response to spills, cleanup thereof, and required reporting
shall comply with the provisions of the approved Emergency Response Plan as found in
the currently approved Stormwater Best Management Practices Plan. For any new
construction of reagent storage facilities, said secondary containment and control shall
Table 4. Feedstock Sto Area Coordinates (l)
l0
4.
Qu.tr.o
Permit No. UGW370004
prevent any contact of the spilled or otherwise released reagent or product with the
ground surface.
Best Available Technology Requirements for New Construction - any construction,
modification, or operation of new waste or wastewater disposal, treatment, or storage
facilities shall require submittal of engineering design plans and specifications, and prior
Executive Secretary review and approval. All engineering plans or specifications submitted
shall demonstrate compliance with all Best Available Technology (BAT) requirements
stipulated by the Utah Ground Water Quality Protection Regulations (UAC R317-6). Upon
Executive Secretary approval this Permit may be re-opened and modified to include any
necessary requirements.
BAT Design Standards for Tailings Cell 4,A. - the BAT design standard for Tailings Cell 4,A.
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:
5.
Table 5. Aooroved Ta Cell4,A.neen Desisn and Soecifications
Ensineerins Drawinss
Name Date Revision No.Title
Sheet 1 of7 Jwe,2007 Title Sheet
Sheet 2 of7 June 15.2007 Rev. 1 Site Plan
Sheet 3 of7 June 15,2007 Rev. 1 Base Gradine Plan
Sheet 4 of7 June 15.2007 Rev. I Pipe Layout Plan
Sheet 5 of7 June 15,2007 Rev. I Linins Svstem Deta IsI
Sheet 6 of7 June 15" 2007 Rev. I Linins Svstem Deta Is II
Sheet 7 of7 June 15,2007 Rev. I Linins Svstem Deta ls III
Fizure 1 Aurust.2008 Spillwav Solash Pad Anchor
Ensineerins Specifications
Date Document Title Prepared by
June,2007 Revised Technical Specifications for the
Construction of Cell4A Linins Svstem
Geosyntec Consultants
ltne,2007 Revised Construction Quality Assurance Plan for
the Construction of Cell4A Linins Svstem
Geosyntec Consultants
March 27,2007 Revised Geosynthetic Clay Liner Hydration
Demonstration Work Plan (l)Geosyrtec Consultants
November 27,2006 Cell Seismic Study ("MFG Consulting Scientists
and Engineers
October 6,2006 Calculation of Action Leakage Rate Tfuough the
Leakage Detection System Underlying a
Geomembrane Liner
Geosyntec Consultants
June22,2006 Slope Stability Analysis Cell 4A - Interim
Conditions
Geosyntec Consultants
June 23. 2006 Settlement Evaluation of Berms ('Geosvntec Consultants
Auzust 22.2006 Pipe Streneth Calculatrons Geoswtec Consultants
September 27.2007 DMC Cell44' - GCL Hydration Geosvntec Consultants
Footnotes:
I ) As qualified by conditions found in May 2,2007 Division of Radiation Control letter.
2) As clarified by February 8, 2007 Division ofRadiation Control Round 6 lnterrogatory
ll
Part LD
Permit No. UGW370004
Tailings Cell 4,A' Design and Construction - approved by the Executive Secretarywill consist
of the following major elements:
a) Dikes - consisting of existing earthen ernbankments of compacted soil, constructedbythe
Permittee between 1989 andl990, and composed of four dikes, each including a 15-foot
wide road at the top (minimum). On the north, east, and south margins these dikes have
slopes of 3H to 1V. The west dike has an interior slope of 2H to 1V. Width ofthese dikes
varies; each has a minimum crest width of at least 15 feet to support an access road. Base
width also varies from 89-feet on the east dike (with no exterior embankment), to 211-
feet at the west dike.
b) Foundation - including existing subgrade soils over bedrock materials. Foundation
preparation included excavation and removal of contaminated soils, compaction of
imported soils to a maximum dry density of 90%. Floor of Cell 4,A, has an average slope
of lYo that grades from the northeast to the southwest corners.
c) Tailings Capacity - the floor and inside slopes of Cell 4,A' encompass about 40 acres and
have a maximum capacity of about 1.6 million cubic yards oftailings material storage (as
measured below the required 3-foot freeboard).
d) Liner and Leak Detection Systems - including the following layers, in descending order:
1) Primary Flexible Membrane Liner (FML) - consisting of impermeable 60 mil high
density polyethylene (HDPE) membrane that extends across both the entire cell floor
and the inside side-slopes, and is anchored in a trench at the top of the dikes on all
four sides. The primary FML will be in direct physical contact with the tailings
material over most of the Cell 4,A. floor area. In other locations, the primary FML will
be in contact with the slimes drain collection system (discussed below).
2) Leak Detection System - includes a permeable HDPE geonet fabric that extends
across the entire area under the primary FML in Cell 4A', and drains to a leak
detection sump in the southwest corner. Access to the leak detection sump is via an
18-inch inside diameter (lD) PVC pipe placed down the inside slope, locatedbetween
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 feetby 10 feetby
2 feet deep. In turn, the gravel filter layer will be enclosed in an envelope of
geotextile fabric. The purpose of both the gravel and geotextile fabric is to serve as a
filter.
3) Secondary FML - consisting of an impermeable 60-mil HDPE membrane found
immediately below the leak detection geonet. Said FML also extends across the
entire Cell 4,A. floor, up the inside side-slopes and is also anchored in a trench at the
top of all four dikes.
4) Geosynthetic Clay Liner - consisting of a manufactured geosynthetic clay liner (GCL)
composed of 0.2-inch of low permeability bentonite clay centered and stitched
between two layers of geotextile. Prior to disposal of anywastewater in Cell 4,A., the
Permittee shall demonstrate that the GCL has achieved a moisture content of at least
50%by weight. This item is a revised requirement per DRC letter to DUSA dated
September 28,2007.
t2
e)
Part I.D
Permit No. UGW310004
Slimes Drain Collection System - including a two-part system of strip drains and
perforated collection pipes both installed immediately above the primary FML, as
follows:
l)' Horizontal Strip Drain System - is installed in a herringbone pattem across the floor
of Cell 4A that drain to a "backbone" of perforated collection pipes. These strip
drains are made of a prefabricated two-part geo-composite drain material (solid
polymer drainage strip) core surrounded by an envelope of non-woven geotextile
filter fabric. The strip drains are placed immediately over the primary FML on 50-
foot centers, where they conduct fluids downgradient in a southwesterlydirection to a
physical and hydraulic connection to the perforated slimes drain collection pipe. A
series of continuous sand bags, filled with filter sand cover the strip drains. The sand
bags are composed of a woven polyester fabric filled with well graded filter sand to
protect the drainage system from plugging.
2) Horizontal Slimes Drain Collection Pipe System - includes a "backbone" piping
system of4-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 overlainby
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 18-inch ID Schedule 40 PVC pipe placed
down the inside slope of Cell 4,A. 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 1S-inch pipe
with the 4-inch SDC pipe. At some future time, a pump will be set in this 18-inch
pipe and used to remove tailings wastewaters for purposes of de-watering the tailings
cell.
Cell 4A North Dike Splash Pads - three 20-foot wide splash pads will be constructed on
the north dike to protect the primary FML from abrasion and scouring by tailings slurry.
These pads will consist of an extra layer of 60 mil HDPE membrane that will be installed
in the anchor trench and placed down the inside slope of Cell 4A, from the top of the
dike, under the inlet pipe, and down the inside slope to a point 5-feet beyond the toe of
the slope.
Cell 4,A. 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 4,A.. 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.
s)
l3
Part I.D
Permit No. UGW370004
6. BAT Performance Standards for Tailings Cell 4,A. - the Permittee shall operate and maintain
Tailings Cell 4A so as to prevent release of wastewater to groundwater and the environment
in accordance with the currently approved Cell 4,A. BAT, Monitoring, Operations and
Maintenance Plan. Any failure to achieve or maintain the required BAT perfofinance
standards shall constitute a violation of the Permit and shall be reported to the Executive
Secretary in accordance with Part I.G.3. Performance standards for Tailings Cell 4A shall
include the following:
Leak Detection System (LDS) Maximum Allowable Daily Head - the fluid head in the
LDS shall not exceed 1 foot above the lowest point on the lower flexible membrane liner
on the cell floor. For purposes of compliance this elevation will equate to a maximum
distance of 2.28 feet above the LDS transducer. At all times the Permittee shall operate
the LDS pump and transducer in a horizontal position at the lowest point of the LDS
sump floor.
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 4A, the Permittee will
provide: 1) continuous declining fluid heads in the slimes drain layer, in a manner
equivalent to the requirements found in Part I.D.3(b), and}) 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,A., as measured Ilom the top of the upper FML.
7. Definition of I le.(2) Waste - for purposes of this Perniit, I 1e.(2) waste is defined as: r'...
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 1 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.
8. Closed Cell Performance Requirements - before reclamation and closure of any tailings
disposal cell, the Permittee shall ensure that the final design, construction, and operation of
the cover system at each tailings cell will comply with all requirements of an approved
Reclamation Plan, and will for a period of not less than 200 years meet the following
minimum performance requirements :
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.
a)
b)
c)
d)
a)
b)
c)
t4
Q*,,
Permit No. UGW370004
9. Facility Reclamation Requirements - upon commencement of decommissioning, the
Permittee shall reclaim the mill site and all related facilities, stabilize the tailings cells, and
construct a cover system over the tailings cells in compliance with all engineering design and
specifications in an approved Reclamation Plan. The Executive Secretary reserves the right
to require modifications of the Reclamation Plan for purposes of compliance with the Utah
Ground Water Quality Protection Regulations, including but not limited to containment and
control of contaminants, or discharges, or potential discharges to Waters of the State.
10. Stormwater Management and Spill Control Requirements - the Permittee will manage all
contact and non-contact stormwater and control contaminant spills at the facility in
accordance with the currently approved Stormwater Best Management Practices Plan. Said
plan includes the following minimum provisions:
a) Protect groundwater quality or other waters of the state by design, construction, and/or
active operational measures that meet the requirements of the Ground Water Quality
Protection Regulations found in UAC R3l7-6-6.3(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 in
accordance with UAC 19-5-114.
Reconstruction of stormwater management and/or chemical reagent storage facilities,
existing at the time of original Permit issuance, may be required by the Executive Secretary
after occurrence of a major spill or catastrophic failure, pursuant to Part IV.N.3 of this
Permit.
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
c) Each and every feedstock container will be placed inside a water-tight overpack prior to
storage, or
d) Feedstock containers shall be stored on a hardened surface to prevent spillage onto
subsurface soils, and that conforms with the following minimum physical requirements:
1) A storage area composed of a hardened engineered surface of asphalt or concrete, and
2) A storage area designed, constructed, and operatbd in accordance with engineering
plans and specifications approved in advance by the Executive Secretary. All such
engineering plans or specifications submitted shall demonstrate compliance with Part
I.D.4,
3) A storage area that provides containment berms to control stormwater run-on and
run-off, and
b)
c)
l5
Part LD
Permit No. UGW370004
4) Stormwater drainage works approved in advance by the Executive Secretary, or
5) Other storage facilities and means approved in advance by the Executive Secretary.
12. BAT Design Standards for Tailings Cell 48 - the BAT design standard for Tailings Cell 48
shall be defined by and constructed in accordance with the requirements as summarized by
the engineering drawings, specifications, and description in Table 6, below:
l. Engineering drawing Sheet 6 of 8 is approved subject to conditions and requirements outlined in Part LH. I I of
this Permit.
16
able 6.Tai I Cell48 En Desi and S catlons
Engineerins Drawinss
Name Date Revision No.Title
Sheet I of8 Januarv 2009 Rev. I Cover Sheet
Sheet 2 of 8 Januarv 2009 Rev. I Site Plan
Sheet 3 of8 Januarv 2009 Rev. I Base Gradins Plan
Sheet 4 of 8 Januarv 2009 Rev. I Pine Lavout and Details
Sheet 5 ofS December 2007 Rev. 0 Linins Svstem Deta sI
Sheet6of8('January 2009 Rev. 1 Linins Svstem Deta Is II
Sheet 7 of 8 January 2009 Rev. i Lining System Details III
Sheet 8 of 8 Januarv 2009 Rev. I Linins Svstem Details IV
Fisure I January 2009 Mill Site Drainase Basins (suooortins reference)
Ensineerins Snecifications
Date Document Title Prepared by
Januarv 2009 Slope Stability Analysis Calculation Packaee Geosvntec Consultants
January 2009 Seismic Deformation Analysis Calculation
Packase
Geosyntec Consultants
January 2009 Revised Pipe Strength Analysis Calculation
Packase
Geosyntec Consultants
January 2009 Revised Comparison of Flow Though Compacted
Clay Liner and Geosynthetic Clay Liner
Calculation Packase
Geosyntec Consultants
Januarv 2009 Revised Action Leakase Rate Calculation Packase Geosyntec Consultants
August 2009 Blasting - Locations and Profiles, Attachment:
Fizures I and2
Geosyntec Consultants
August 2009 (Revised) Technical Specifications, with the
exception of Section 02200 (Earthwork)
Geosyntec Consultants
Auzust 2009 Cell 48 Caoacitv Calculations Geosyntec Consultants
Auzust 2009 Revised Cushion Fabric Calculations
August 2009 Construction Quality Assurance Plan for the
Construction of Cell48 Linins Svstem
Geosyntec Consultants
September 2009 (Revised) Technical Specification Section 02200
(Earthwork)
Geosyntec Consultants
August 6,2009
Blast Plan, KGL and Associates and Blast Plan
Review, Geosyntec Consultants letter dated
September 10.2009
KGL and Associates and
Geosyntec Consultants
September 2009 Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) Event
Computation
Geosyntec Consultants
Januarv 2009 Slope Stability Analysis Calculation Packase Geosyntec Consultants
Qu.tr.p
Permit No. UGW370004
Tailings Cell 48 Design and Construction - approved by the Executive Secretarywill consist
of the following major elements:
a) Dikes - consisting of newly constructed dikes on the south and west side of the cell, each
including a 2O-foot wide road at the top (minimum) to support an access road. The
grading plan for the Cell 48 excavation includes interior slopes of 2Hto 1V. The exterior
slopes of the southern and western dikes will have tlpical slopes of 3H to lV. Limited
portions of the Cell 48 interior sideslopes in the northwest corner and southeast comer of
the cell, (where the slimes drain and leak detection sump will be located will also have a
slope of 3H to 1V. The base width of the southern dikes varies from approximately 92
feet at the western end to approximately 190 feet at the eastern end of the dike, with no
exterior embankment present on any other side of the cell.
b) Foundation - including existing subgrade soils over bedrock materials. Foundation
preparation included excavation and removal of contaminated soils, compaction of
imported soils to a maximum dry density of 90o/o at a moisture content between +3oZ and
-3% of optimum moisture content, as determinedbyASTM D-l557. ThefloorofCell48
has an average slope of l%othatgrades from the northwest corner to the southeast corner.
c) Tailings Capacity - the floor and inside slopes of Cell 48 encompass about 44 acres, and
the cell will have a water surface area of 40 acres and a maximum capacity of about 1.9
million cubic yards of tailings material storage (as measured below the required 3-foot
freeboard).
d) Liner and Leak Detection Systems - including the following layers, in descending order:
1) Primary Flexible Membrane Liner (FML) - consisting of 60-mil high density
polyethylene (HDPE) membrane that extends across both the entire cell floor and the
inside side-slopes, and is anchored in a trench at the top ofthe dikes on all four sides.
The primary FML will be in direct physical contact with the tailings material over
most of the Cell 48 floor area. In other locations, the primary FML will be in contact
with the slimes drain collection system (discussed below).
2) Leak Detection System - includes a permeable HDPE geonet that extends across the
entire area under the primary FML in Cell,4B, and drains to a leak detection sump in
the southeast corner. Access to the leak detection sump is via an 18-inch inside
diameter (ID) PVC pipe placed down the inside slope, located between the primary
and secondary FML liners. At its base this pipe will be surrounded with a gravel filter
set in a sump having dimensions of 15 feet by 10 feet by 2 feet deep that contains a
leak detection system sump area. In turn, the gravel filter layer will be enclosed in an
envelope of geotextile fabric. The purpose of both the gravel and geotextile fabric is
to serve as a filter.
3) Secondary FML - consisting of a 60-mil HDPE membrane found immediatelybelow
the leak detection geonet. Said FML also extends across the entire Cell48 floor, up
the inside side-slopes and is also anchored in a trench at the top of all four dikes.
4) Geosynthetic Clay Liner - consisting of a manufactured geosynthetic clay liner (GCL)
composed of O.2-inch of low permeability bentonite clay centered and stitched
between two layers of geotextile. Prior to disposal of any wastewater in Cell 4B, the
t7
e)
Part I.D
Permit No. UGW370004
Permittee shall demonstrate that the GCL has achieved a moisture content of at least
50%by weight.
Slimes Drain Collection System - including a two-part system of strip drains and
perforated collection pipes both installed immediately above the primary FML, as
follows:
1) Horizontal Strip Drain System - is installed in a herringbone pattern across the floor
of Cell 48 that drain to a "backbone" of perforated collection pipes. These strip
drains are made of a prefabricated two-part geo-composite drain material (solid
polymer drainage strip) core surrounded by an envelope of non-woven geotextile
filter fabric. The strip drains are placed immediately over the primary FML on 50-
foot centers, where they conduct fluids downgradient in a southwesterly direction to a
physical and hydraulic connection to the perforated slimes drain collection pipe. A
series of continuous sand bags, filled with filter sand cover the strip drains. The sand
bags are composed of a woven polyester fabric filled with well graded filter sand to
protect the drainage system from plugging.
2) 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 overlainby
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 seryes as the "backbone" to the slimes drain
system and runs from the far northwest corner downhill to the far southeast comer of
Cell48 where it joins the slirqes drain access pipe.
3) Slimes Drain Access Pipe - consisting of an 18-inch ID Schedule 40 PVC pipeplaced
down the inside slope of Cell 48 at the southeast corner, above the primary FML.
Said pipe then merges with another horizontal pipe of equivalent diameter and
material, where it is enveloped by gravel and woven geotextile that serves as a
cushion to protect the primary FML. A reducer connects the horizontal l8-inch pipe
with the 4-inch SDC pipe. At some future time, a pump will be set in this 18-inch
pipe and used to remove tailings wastewaters for purposes of de-watering the tailings
cell.
Cell 48 North and East Dike Splash Pads - Nine 20-foot-wide splash pads will be
constructed on the north and east dikes to protect the primary FML from abrasion and
scouring by tailings slurry. These pads will consist of an extra layer of 60 mil HDPE
membrane that will be installed in the anchor trench and placed down the inside slope of
Cell 48, from the top of the dike, under the inlet pipe, and down the inside slope to a
point at least 5 feet onto the Cell 48 floor beyond the toe of the slope.
Cell 48 Emergency Spillway - a concrete lined spillway will be constructed near the
southeastem corner of the east dike to allow emergency runoff from Cell 4,A, into Cell
48. This spillway will be limited to a 6-inch reinforced concrete slab, with a welded wire
fabric installed within it at its midsection, set atop a cushion geotextile placed directly
over the primary FML in a 4-foot deep trapezoidal channel. A 10O-foot wide, 60-mil
HDPE membrane splash pad will be installed beneath the emergency spillway. No other
s)
18
Part I.D & I.E
PermitNo. UGW370004
spillway or overflow structure will be constructed at Cell 48. All stormwater runoff and
tailings wastewaters not retained in Cells 2 and 3 , and 4A will be managed and contained
in Cell48, including the Probable Maximum Precipitation and flood event.
13. BAT Performance Standards for Tailings Cell 48 - the Permittee shall operate and maintain
Tailings Cell 48 so as to prevent release of wastewater to groundwater and the environment
in accordance with an approved Cell48 BAT, Monitoring, Operations and Maintenance Plan
pursuant to Part I.H.8 of this Permit. Any failure to achieve or maintain the required BAT
performance standards shall constitute a violation of the Permit and shall be reported to the
Executive Secretary in accordance with Part I.G.3. Performance standards for Tailings Cell
48 shall include the following:
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. At all times the Permittee shall operate the LDS pump and transducer
in a horizontal position at the lowest point of the LDS sump floor.
b. LDS Maximum Allowable Daily Leak Rate - shall not exceed 26,145 galloris/day.
Slimes Drain Monthly and Annual Average Recovery Head Criteria - after the Permittee
initiates pumping conditions in the slimes drain layer in Cell 48, 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
5.5 years or less.
Maximum Weekly Wastewater Level - ,rnd", no circumstance shall the freeboard be less
then 3-feet in Cell48, as measured from the top of the upper FML.
E. GnouNo Warpn CoMPLLI.NCE AND TECHNoLocy PrRronveNCE MoNrroRrNG - 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:
l. Routine Groundwater Compliance Monitoring - the Permittee shall monitor upgradient,
lateral gradient, and downgradient groundwater monitoring wells completed in the shallow
aquifer in the vicinity of all potential discharge sources that could affect local groundwater
conditions at the facility, as follows:
a) Ground Water Monitoring Quality Assurance Plan - all groundwater monitoring and
analysis performed under this Permit shall be conducted in accordance with a Quality
Assurance Plan (QAP) currently approved by the Executive Secretary. Any non-
conformance with QAP requirernents in a given quarterly groundwater monitoring period
C.
d.
19
b)
Part I.E
Permit No. UGW370004
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.l.
Quarterly Monitoring - the Permittee shall monitor on a quarterly basis all monitoring
wells listed in Table 2 of this Permit where local groundwater average linear velocity has
been found by the Executive Secretary to be equal to or greater than l0 feet/year. For
pu{poses of this Permit, quarterly monitoring is required at the following wells:
l) Upgradient Wells: none
2) Lateral or Downgradient Wells: MW-l 1, MW-14, MW-25,lvtw-26 (formerlyTW4-
l5), MW-30, and MW-31 .
3) Future Cell 48 Downgradient Wells to be Installed - quarterlymonitoring shall begin
within 30 calendar days of installation of new groundwater monitoring wells MW-33,
MW-34, and MW-35 required by Part I.H.6 of this Permit, and continue until
otherwise determined by the Executive Secretary pursuant to Part I.H.7.
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 l0 feet/year. For
purposes of this Permit, semi-annual monitoring is required at the following wells:
1) Upgradient Wells: MW-l, MW-I8, MW-19, and MW-27.
2) Lateral or Downgradient Wells: MW-2, MW-3, MW-3A, MW-5, MW-12, MW-I5,
MW-17, MW-23, MW-24, MW-28, MW-29, and MW-32 (formerly TW4-17).
Compliance Monitoring Parameters - all groundwater samples collected shall be analyzeA
for the following parameters:
l) Field Parameters - depth to groundwater, pH, temperature, specific conductance, and
redox potential (Eh).
2) Laboratory Parameters
i. GWCL Parameters - all contaminants specified in Table 2.
ii. General Inorganics - chloride, sulfate, carbonate, bicarbonate, sodium, potassium,
magnesium, calcium, and total anions and cations.
e) Special Provisions for Groundwater Monitoring - the Permittee shall ensure that all
groundwater monitoring conducted and reported complies with the following
requirements:
1) Depth to Groundwater Measurements - shall always be made to the nearest 0.01 foot.
2) Minimum Detection Limits - all groundwater quality analyses reported shall have a
minimum detection limit or reporting limit that is less than its respective Ground
Water Compliance Limit concentration defined in Table 2.
3) Gross Alpha Counting Variance - all gross alpha analysis shall be reported with an
error term. All gross alpha analysis reported with an activity equal to or greater than
the GWCL, shall have a counting variance that is equal to or less than 20Yo of the
reported activity concentration. An error term may be greater than 20%o of the
c)
d)
20
Q*rB
Permit No. UGW370004
2.
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 and MW-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.8.5.
c) After completion of eight consecutive quarters of groundwater sampling and analysis of
MW-20 and MW-22,the Permittee shall submit a Background Report that will include:
1) Data preparation and statistical analysis of groundwater quality data, including but
not limited to: evaluation of data characteristics and internal data consistency,
treatment ofnon-detectable values, and statistical methods used. These statistics shall
be calculated using the Decision Tree/Flowchart used for the previous Background
Reports that was conditionally approved by the DRC on August 24,2007.
2) Aquifer test results to determine local hydraulic conductivity and other aquifer
properties at wells MW-20 and MW-22.
3) Average linear groundwater velocity calculated for MW-20 and MW-22, based on
well specific hydraulic conductivity, hydraulic gradient, and effective aquifer
porosity.
d) The said report shall be submitted by March 1,2010. After review of this report the
Executive Secretary will evaluate if wells MW-20 and MW-22 should be added as POC
wells, and adjust the sampling frequency in accordance with criteria found in Part
I.E.1(b) or (c). If it is determined that wells MW-20 and MW-22 shouldbe added as POC
wells, the Executive Secretary will re-open this Permit and establish Groundwater
Compliance Limits in Table 2 for wells MW-20 and MW-22.
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.l of this Permit.
Piezometers - P-l ,P-2,P-3, P-4, P-5.
Existing Monitoring Wells - MW-20 and MW-22.
d) Contaminant lnvestigation Wells - any well required by the Executive Secretary as a part
of a contaminant investigation or groundwater corrective action.
e) Any other wells or piezometers required by the Executive Secretary.
4. Groundwater Monitoring Well Design and Construction Criteria - all new groundwater
monitoring wells installed at the facility shall comply with the following design and
construction criteria:
J.
b)
c)
2l
Part I.E
Permit No. UGW370004
a) Located as close as practical to the contamination source, tailings cell, or other potential
origin of groundwater pollution.
Screened and completed in the shallow aquifer.
Designed and constructed in compliance with UAC R317-6-6.3(I)(6), including the EPA
RCRA Ground Water Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance Document, 1986,
oswER-9950.1.
d) Aquifer tested to determine local hydraulic properties, including but not limited to
hydraulic conductivity.
5. Monitoring Procedures for Wells - beginning with the date of Permit issuance, all monitoring
shall be conducted by the Permittee in conformance with the following procedures:
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.
Sampling Plan - all sampling shall be conducted to ensure collection of representative
samples, and reliability and validity of groundwater monitoring data.
Laboratory Approval - all analyses shall be performed by a laboratory certified by the
State of Utah to perform the tests required.
Damage to Monitoring Wells - if any monitor well is damaged or is otherwise rendered
inadequate for its intended purpose, the Permittee shall notiff the Executive Secretary in
writing within five calendar days of discovery.
e) Field Monitoring Equipment Calibration and Records - immediately prior to each
monitoring event, the Permittee shall calibrate all field monitoring equipment in
accordance with the respective manufacturer's procedures and guidelines. The Permittee
shall make and preserve on-site written records of such equipment calibration in
accordance with Part II.G and H of this Permit. Said records shall identifu the
manufacturer's and model number of each piece of field equipment used and calibration.
6. White Mesa Seeps and Springs Monitoring - the Permittee shall conduct annual monitoring
of all seeps and springs identified in the currently approved Sampling Plan for Seeps and
Springs in the Vicinity of the White Mesa Uranium Mill. Said monitoring shall include, but
is not limited to:
a) Field Measurements - including: pH, temperature, and specific conductivity.
b) Water Quality Sampling and Analysis - the Permittee shall collect grab samples and
perform laboratory analysis of all water quality parameters identified in Table 2 of this
Permit.
c) Certified Laboratory Analysis - all laboratory analysis will be conducted by a Utah
certified laboratory.
Analytical Methods - all laboratory analysis shall be conducted using analyical methods
listed in the currently approved QAP pursuant to Part I.E.1 of this Permit.
Minimum Detection Limits - all seeps or springs water quality analyses reported shall
have a minimum detection limit or reporting limit that is less than or equal to the
respective:
b)
c)
a)
b)
c)
d)
d)
e)
22
Or*, u
Permit No. UGW370004
Standards concentrations defined in Table 2 of this Permit,t) Ground Water Quality
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, I mflL, and I mglL,
respectively.
0 Quality Control Samples - the Permittee will conduct quality control (QC) sampling and
analysis as a part of all seeps and springs sampling, in accordance with the requirements
of Section 4.3 of the currently approved QAP; pursuant to Part I.E.l of this Permit. Said
QC samples shall include, but are not limited to: trip blanks, duplicate samples, and
equipment rinse blanks.
g) Prior Notification - at least 15 calendar days before any fieldwork or water quality sample
collection, the Permittee shall provide written notice to allow the Executive Secretaryto
observe or split sample any or all seeps or springs.
7. DMT Performance Standards Monitoring - the Permittee shall perform technology
performance monitoring in accordance with the currently approved DMT Monitoring Plan
to determine if DMT is effective in minimizing and controlling the release of contaminants
pursuant to the provisions of Parts I.D.1 and I.D.3 of this Permit, including, but not limited
to the following activities:
a) Weekly Tailings Wastewater Pool Elevation Monitoring: Cells 1 and 3 - the Permittee
shall monitor and record weekly the elevation of wastewater in Tailings Cells I and 3 to
ensure compliance with the maximum wastewater elevation criteria mandated by
Condition 10.3 of the License. Said measurements shall bemade from awastewaterlevel
gauge or elevation survey to the nearest 0.01 foot.
b) Monthly Slimes Drain Water Level Monitoring: Cells 2 and 3 - the Permittee shall
monitor and record monthly the depth to wastewater in the slimes drain access pipes as
described in Part I.D.3 of this Permit and the currently approved DMT Monitoring Plan
at Tailings Cells 2 and 3 to determine the recovery head. For purposes of said
monitoring, the Permittee shall at each tailings cell:
1) Perform at least 12 separate slimes drain recovery tests at each disposal cell in each
calendar year that meet the requirements of Part I.D.3,
2) Designate, operate, maintain, and preserve one water level measuring point at the
centerline of the slimes drain access pipe that has been surveyed and certified by a
Utah licensed engineer or land surveyor,
3) Make all slimes drain recovery head test (depth to fluid) measurements from the
same designated water level measuring point, and
4) Record and report all fluid depth measurements to the nearest 0.01 foot.
5) For Cell 3 these requirements shall apply upon initiation of tailings de-watering
operations.
c) Weekly Wastewater Level Monitoring: Roberts Pond - the Permittee shall monitor and
record weekly wastewater levels at the Roberts Pond to determine compliance with the
23
Part I.E
Permit No. UGW370004
DMT operations standards in Part I.D.3. Said measurements shall be made in accordance
to the currently approved DMT Monitoring Plan.
d) Weekly Feedstock Storage Area Inspection - the Permittee shall conduct weekly
inspections of all feedstock storage to: l)Confirm the bulk feedstock materials are
maintained within the approved Feedstock Storage Area defined by Table 4, and 2)
Verifu 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 l.
e) Feedstock Material Stored Outside the Feedstock Storage Area Inspections
l) Weekly Inspection - the Permittee will conduct weeklyinspections to veriffthat each
feed material container complies with the requirements of Part I.D.l l.
2) Hardened Surface Storage Area - in the event the Permittee constructs a hardened
surface storage area for feed materials, pursuant to Part I.D.l l, prior Executive
Secretary approval will be secured for the following:
i. Engineering Design and Specifications - in accordance with the requirements of
Part I.D.4, and
ii. Operation and Maintenance Plan.
0 Inspections of Tailing Cell and Pond Liner Systems - the Permittee shall inspect the liner
system at Tailing Cells I , 2, and 3 on a daily basis pursuant to the requirements of
Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the currently approved DMT Monitoring Plan. The Permittee
shall conduct visual inspections at the Roberts Pond on a weeklybasis. In the event that
any liner defect or damage is identified during a liner system inspection, the Permittee
shall: 1)reportandrepairsaiddefectordamagepursuanttoPartl.G.3byimplementation
of the currently approved Liner Maintenance Provisions, and 2) report all repairs made
pursuant to Part I.F.2.
8. Cell 4A BAT Perforrnance Standards Monitoring and Maintenance - in accordance with the
currently approved Cell 4,A. BAT, Monitoring, Operations and Maintenance Plan, pursuant
to Part I.H.8 of this Permit, the Permittee shall immediately implement all monitoring and
recordkeeping requirements therein. The Cell4A BAT monitoring includes the following:
a) Weekly Leak Detection System (LDS) Monitoring - including:
l) Leak Detection System Pumping and Monitoring Equipment - the Permittee shall
provide continuous operation of the leak detection system pumping and monitoring
equipment, including, but not limited to, the submersible pump, pump controller,
head monitoring, and flow meter equipment approved by the Executive Secretary.
Failure of any LDS pumping or monitoring equipment not repaired and made fully
operational within 24-hours of discovery shall constitute failure of BAT, and a
violation of this Permit.
2) Maximum Allowable Head - the Permittee shall measure the fluid head above the
lowest point on the secondary flexible membrane by the use of procedures and
equipment approved by the Executive Secretary. Under no circumstance shall fluid
head in the leak detection system sump exceed a 1-foot level above the lowest point
in the lower flexible membrane liner on the cell floor. For purposes of compliance
24
Part I.E
Permit No. UGW370004
monitoring this l-foot distance shall equate to 2.28 feet above the leak detection
system transducer.
3) Maximum Allowable Daily LDS Flow Rates - the Permittee shall measure the
volume of all fluids pumped from the LDS. Underno 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.
Slimes Drain Recovery Head Monitoring - immediately after the Permittee initiates
pumping conditions in the Tailings Cell 4,A. slimes drain system, monthlyrecoveryhead
tests and fluid level measurements will be made in accordance with the requirements of
Parts I.D.3 and I.E.7(b) of this Permit and any plan approved by the Executive Secretary
pursuant to Part I.H.8.
Liner Maintenance and Repair - all repairs to the liner shall be completed in accordance
with Section 9.4 of the approved June 2007 Geosyntec Consultants Cell 4A
Construction Quality Assurance Plan (CQA/QC Plan) as found in Table 5 of this Permit.
Repairs shall be performed by qualified liner repair personnel and shall be reported in a
Liner Repair Report, certified by a Utah licensed Professional Engineer. The Liner Repair
Report shall be submitted to for Executive Secretary approval in accordance with Part
I.F.3 of the Permit. Any leak, hole, or other damage to the liner will be reported to the
Executive Secretary pursuant to the requirements found in Part I.G.3.
9. On-site Chemicals lnventory - the Permittee shall monitor and maintain a current inventory
of all chemicals used at the facility at rates equal to or greater than 100 kdyr. 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
b) Determination of volume and mass of each raw chemical currentlyheld in storage at the
facility.
10. Tailings Cell Wastewater Quality Monitoring - on an annual basis, the Permittee shall collect
wastewater quality samples from each wastewater source at each tailings cell at the facility,
including, but not limited to:
a. One surface impounded wastewater location at each of Tailings Cells 1 ,3,4A, and 48.
b. One slimes drain wastewater access pipe at each of Tailings Cells 2,3,4A,and 48, For
Cells 3, 4,{, and 48, this requirement shall apply immediately after initiation of de-
watering operations at these cells, and
c. One leak detection wastewater access pipe at Tailings Cells 4A and 48.
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:
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:
b)
c)
25
Part I.E
Permit No. UGW370004
i. Water quality parameters identified in Table 2 of this Permit, and
ii. Semi-volatile compounds identified in EPA Method 8270D.
3) Certified Laboratory Analysis - all laboratory analysis will be conducted by a Utah
certified laboratory.
4) Analytical Methods - all laboratory analysis shall be conducted using analytical
methods listed in the currently approved QAP pursuant to Part LE.l of this Permit.
5) Minimum Detection Limits - all water quality analyses reported shall have a
minimum detection limit orreporting limit that is less than or equal to therespective:
i. Ground Water Quality Standards concentrations defined in Table 2 ofthis 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
m91L,1,000 mg/L, and I mg/L, respectively, and
iii. Lower limits of quantitation for groundwater for semi-volatile organic
compounds listed in Table 2 of EPA Method 8270D, Revision 4, dated February,
2007.
6) Quality Control Samples - the Permittee will conduct quality control (QC) sampling
and analysis as a part of all tailings wastewater sampling, in accordance with the
requirements of Section 4.3 of the currently approved QAP; pursuant to Part I.E.l of
this Permit. Said QC samples shall include, but are not limited to: trip blanks,
duplicate samples, and equipment rinse blanks.
7) Prior Notification - at least 30 calendar days before any water quality sample
collection, the Permittee shall provide written notice to allow the Executive Secretary
to observe or split sample any tailings cell, slimes drain, or leak detection
wastewaters.
8) Sample Omission - in the course of each annual sampling event, the Permittee shall
sample and analyze all tailings cell, slimes drain, and leak detection wastewater
sources identified in the currently approved Tailings and Slimes Drain Sampling
Program (pp. I -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 anymodification ofgroundwatermonitoring
or analysis prbcedures, methods, or equipment, the Permittee must obtain prior written
approval from the Executive Secretary.
12. Cell48 BAT Performance Standards Monitoring and Maintenance - immediatelyfollowing
Executive Secretary approval of the Cell 48 BAT, Monitoring, Operations and Maintenance
Plan, pursuant to Part I.H.8 of this Permit, the Permittee shall immediately implement all
monitoring and recordkeeping requirements therein. The Cell 48 BAT monitoring shall
include the following:
26
Q"n I.E & I.F
Permit No. UGW370004
Weekly Leak Detection System (LDS) Monitoring - including:
1) Leak Detection System Pumping and Monitoring Equipment - the Permittee shall
provide continuous operation of the leak detection system pumping and monitoring
equipment, including, but not limited to, the submersible pump, pump controller,
head monitoring, and flow meter equipment approved by the Executive Secretary.
Failure of any LDS pumping or related monitoring equipment not repaired and made
fully operational within 24-hours of discovery shall constitute failure of BAT, and a
violation of this Permit.
2) Maximum Allowable Head - the Permittee shall measure the fluid head above the
lowest point on the secondary flexible membrane by the use of procedures and
equipment approved by the Executive Secretary. Under no circurnstance shall fluid
head in the leak detection system (LDS) sump exceed a 1-foot level above the lowest
point in the lower flexible membrane liner on the cell floor. Any occuffence of leak
detection system fluids above this 1-foot limit shall constitute failure of BAT, and a
violation of this Permit.
3) Maximum Allowable Daily LDS Flow Rates - the Permittee shall measure the
volume of all fluids pumped from the LDS. Underno circumstances shall the average
daily LDS flow volume exceed 26,145 gallons/day.
4) 3-foot Minimum Vertical Freeboard Criteria - the Permittee shall operate and
maintain wastewater levels to provide a 3-foot Minimum of vertical freeboard in
Tailings Cell 48. Said measurements shall be made to the nearest 0.1 foot.
Slimes Drain Recovery Head Monitoring - immediately after the Permittee initiates
pumping conditions in the Tailings Cell 48 slimes drain system, monthlyrecoveryhead
tests and fluid level measurements will be made in accordance with the requirements of
Parts I.D.3 and I.8.7(b) of this Permit and any plan approved by the Executive Secretary
pursuant to Part I.H.8.
Liner Maintenance and Repairs - all repairs to the liner shall be completed in accordance
with Section 10.4 of the approved August 2009 Geosyntec Consultants Cell 48
Construction QualityAssurance Plan (CQA/QC Plan) as found in Table 6 of this Permit.
Repairs shall be performed by qualified liner repair personnel and shall be reported in a
Liner Repair Report, certified by a Utah licensed Professional Engineer. The Liner Repair
Report shall be submitted for Executive Secretary approval in accordance with Part I.F.3
of the Permit. Any leak, hole, or other damage to the liner will be reported pursuant to the
requirements found in Part I.G.3.
F. RrponrNc REqum.rvrNTS - The following reporting procedures for routine and compliance
reports must be met.
l. Routine Groundwater Monitoring Reports - the Permittee shall submit quarterlymonitoring
reports of field and laboratory analyses of all well monitoring and samples described in Parts
LE.1, I.E.2, I.E.3, and I.E.5 of this Permit for Executive Secretaryreview and approval.
Reports shall be submitted according to the following schedule:
a)
b)
c)
27
2.
Part I.F
Permit No. UGW370004
Table Groundwater Monitonn
Ouarter Period Due Date
First January - March June I
Second April - June September I
Third Julv - Seotember December I
Fourth October - December March I
Schedule
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 ofwell pump, depth to
groundwater before purging and sampling, calculated well casing volume, volume of
water purged before sampling, volume of water collected for analysis, types of sample
containers and preservatives.
b. Laboratory Results - or copies thereof that provide the following: date and time sampled,
date received by laboratory and for each parameter analyzed, the following information:
laboratory result or concentration, units of measurement, minimum detection limit or
reporting limit, analytical method, date of analysis, counting error for radiological
analyses, total cations and anions for inorganic analysis.
c. WaterTable ContourMap - whichprovides the location and identityof 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 QualityAssurance Plan.
Said report shall verifu 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-conforrnance 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
28
Q*r.e
Permit No. UGW370004
Permit and the currently approved DMT Monitoring Plan. When a liner repair is performed
at the Roberts Pond or any DMT impoundment, a Repair Report is required by the Liner
Maintenance Provisions. This Repair Report shall be included with the next quarterly DMT
Report. Said monitoring reports and results shall be submitted for Executive Secretary
approval on the schedule provided in Table 7, above.
3. Routine Cell4,A. and 48 BAT Perfoffnance Standards Monitoring Reports - the Permittee
shall provide quarterly monitoring reports of all BAT performance standards monitoring
required by Parts I E.8 and I.8.12 of this Permit. BAT Monitoring at Cells 4A and 48 shall
be conducted in compliance with the currently approved BAT Monitoring, Operations and
Maintenance Plan. When a liner repair is performed at Tailings Cell 4A or 4B., a Repair
Report is required by Parts I.E.S(c) and I.E.12(c) of the Permit. This Repair Report shall be
included with the next quarterly BAT Report. Said monitoring report and results shall be
submitted for Executive Secretary approval on the schedule provided in Table 7 above. At a
minimum, reporting of BAT monitoring for Cells 44. and 48 will include:
a) LDS Monitoring - including:
1) Report on the operational status of the LDS pumping and monitoring equipment
during the quarter, including identification of any intervals of non-operational status
and repairs.
2) Measurement of the weekly fluid head at the lowest point of the secondary
membrane.
3) Measurement of the volume of all fluids pumped from the LDS.
b) Measurement of the weekly wastewater fluids elevation in the Cells 4A and 48
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 anynon-compliance
with the DMT or BAT performance criteria of Part LD 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 a permit application or
in anyreport to the Executive Secretary, the Permittee shall submit such facts orinformation
within l0 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
29
4.
5.
6.
Part LF
Permit No. UGW370004
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:
l) Total depth and diameters of boring,
2) Depth, type, diameter, and physical properties of well casing and screen, including
well screen slot size,
3) Depth intervals, type and physical properties of annular filterpack and seal materials
used,
4) Design, type, diameter, and construction of protective surface casing, and
5) Survey coordinates prepared by a State ofUtah 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 Secretaryreview 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 complywith
the requirements of Part I.F.l(a) of this Permit,
b) Laboratory Results - for each sample collected that comply with the requironents of Part
I.F.1(b) of this Permit,
c) Water Table Contour Map - that includes groundwater elevations for each well at the
facility and the elevations of the phreatic surfaces observed at each of the seeps and
springs sampled. The contour map will include all water level data measurements from
seeps, springs, and monitoring wells at the site from the 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 maybe 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 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 suryey, 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
d)
e)
30
Q*re
Permit No. UGW370004
8.
9.
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
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.l. 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 1, of each calendar year. Said report
shall include:
a) Data evaluation and interpretation of all wastewater quality samples collected,
b) All information required by Part I.F.1(a), (b), (d), and (e) of this Permit, and
c) For slimes drain samples, the Permittee shall report depth to wastewater measurements
from the water level measurement point. Said wastewater level shall be measured
immediately before sample collection.
10. Revised Hydrogeologic Report - pursuant to Part IV.D of this Permit, and at least 180
calendar days prior to Permit expiration, the Permittee shall submit for Executive Secretary
approval a revised hydrogeologic report for the facility and surrounding area. Said report
shall provide a comprehensive update and evaluation of:
a) Local hydrogeologic conditions in the shallow aquifer, including, but not limited to: local
geologic conditions; time relationships and distribution of shallow aquifer head
measurements from facility wells and piezometers; local groundwater flow directions;
and distribution of aquifer permeability and average linear groundwater velocity across
the site, and
b) Well spdcific groundwater quality conditions measured at facility monitoring wells for all
groundwater monitoring parameters required by this Permit, including, but not limited to:
temporal contaminant concentrations and trends from each monitoring well; statistical
tests for normality of each contaminant and well, including univariate or equivalent tests;
calculation of the mean concentration and standard deviation for each well and
contaminant.
11.Annual Slimes Drain Recovery Head Report - on or before March 1 of each year the
Permittee shall submit for Executive Secretaryapproval an annual slimes drainrecoveryhead
report for Tailings Cells 2 and 3. Said report shall conform to the requirements of Part
I.D.3(b),I.8.7(b), and II.G of this Permit, and:
a) Provide the individual monthly slimes drain recovery head monitoring data for the
previous calendar year, including, but not limited to: date and time for the start and end
of recovery test, initial water level, final depth to stable water level and equivalent
recovery water level elevation.
b) Calculate the average slimes drain recovery head for the previous calendar year.
3l
Part I.F & I.G
Permit No. UGW370004
c) Include a time series chart to show trends of the monthly recovery water level elevations
at each slimes drain.
d) Include the results of a quality assurance evaluation and data validation. Said
examination shall provide written descriptions and findings that:
1) Evaluate all data collected, data collection methods, and all related calculations
required by this Permit, and
2) Veriff the accuracy and reliability of both the data and calculations reported.
e) Demonstrate compliance status with the requirements of Part LD.3O) and LE.7(b) ofthis
Permit.
G. Our oF CoNPLTANCE SrATus
l. 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) Notifu 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)
Permittee shall initiate monthly monitoring.
2) Semi-annual Baseline Monitoring Wells - for wells defined by Part LE.l(c)
Permittee shall initiate quarterly monitoring.
Said accelerated monitoring shall continue at the frequencies defined above until
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(CXl). Notification shall be given orally within24-
hours of the Permittee's discovery of the failure of DMT or BAT, and shall be followed
up by written notification, including the information necessary to make a determination
under R3 I 7-6-6. 16(C)(2), within five calendar days of the Permittee's discovery of the
failure of best available technology.
b) The Executive Secretary shall use the information provided under R317-6-6.16.C(1) and
any additional information provided by the Permittee to determine whether to initiate a
compliance action against the Permittee for violation of Permit conditions. A compliance
action shall not be initiated, if the Executive Secretary determines that the Permittee has
met the standards for an affirmative defense, as specified in R3I7-6-6.16(CX3).
the
the
the
2.
J.
32
Q* r.G & LH
Permit No. UGW370004
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:
l) The Permittee submitted notification according to R317-6-6.13,
2) The failure was not intentional or caused by the Permittee's negligence, either in
action or in failure to act,
3) The Permittee has taken adequate measures to meet Permit conditions in a timely
manner or has submitted to the Executive Secretary, for the Executive Secretary's
approval, an adequate plan and schedule for meeting Permit conditions, and
4) The provisions of UCA 19-5-107 have not been violated.
4. Facility Out of Compliance Status - if the facility is out of compliance, the following is
required:
a) The Permittee shall notiff 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. Corrapr-tANCE Scnpourr R-rqunnIr,murs. The Permittee will comply with the schedules as
described and summarized below:
1. On-site Chemicals lnventory 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.
c)
d)
e)
JJ
Part I.H
Permit No. UGW370004
At the time of Permit renewal, the Permittee shall submit an updated inventory report
pursuant to Part LF.8.
2. lnfiltration 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 systern 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 ofPart I.D.S ofthis
Permit. The Permittee shall submit an infiltration and contaminant modeling for Executive
Secretary approval, that:
Identifies all applicable and pertinent historic studies and modeling reports relevant to
tailings cell cover design and tailings cell system performance.
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 model s.
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: goveming equations and their
applicabilityto 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 identifythe
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.8 of this Permit.
Provides, describes and justifies the following:
1) Model Results - including electronic input and output files from all infiltration,
groundwater flow and contaminant transport models used the report.
2) Model Calibration - including description of results and efforts used to demonstrate
how the model adequately reproduced field measured heads, flows, and contaminant
concentrations.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
34
Q*,,
Permit No. UGW370004
3) Steady State Conditions - including a demonstration that the models achieved a
steady state condition during the simulation. This includes, but is not limited to
disclosure, evaluation and justification of water and mass balance error values
reported by the models.
4) Sensitivity Analyses - including description of various model simulations run and
evaluated to define the range of model uncertainty. Such uncertainty includes, but is
not limited to: boundary and initial conditions, model input values, and spatial and
temporal distribution of model parameters used in the problem domain.
5) Post-model Audit Plan - including plans to revisit the modeling effort at some future
time to re-assess its ability to represent site characteristics and predict long-term
performance of tailings cell design and construction, and groundwater protection.
The Permittee shall complete all modeling in accordance with the requirements of Part I.H.2
and submit a final report for Executive Secretary approval. In the final report, the Permittee
may include supplemental information to justifu 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 SupplyWell WW-2 -thepurpose 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 orbefore January 31,2012, the Permittee shall:
a) Conduct an investigation of water supply well WW-2 to verifo that the casing and
annular seal is intact and creates both a physical barrier and hydraulic isolation between
the shallow unconfined and the deep confined aquifers, said investigation shall include
one or more of the following investigation techniques performed in accordance with
applicable guidance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: well casing video
logs, cement bond logs, and/or temperature logs,
b) Show that the well casing and annular seal have physical and hydraulic 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 repair the well
casing and annular seal(s) to provide well construction that complies with the regulations
of the Utah State Engineer (UAC R655-4-9). After such repairs are completed, the
Permittee will conduct repeat testing using the investigation techniques required under
Part I.H.3(a) to demonstrate existence of the required hydraulic isolation, and
c) Submit a written report for Executive Secretary approval to document the investigation
and its findings, and any well repair activities. Said report shall be certified by a Utah-
licensed Professional Engineer or Geologist.
3s
4.
Part I.H
Permit No. UGW370004
New Decontamination Pad - the Permittee shall not use the New Decontamination Pad until
the following conditions are satisfied:
a) Within 30 calendar days of issuance of the Permit, the Permittee shall submit an updated
DMT Monitoring Plan for Executive Secretary approval that includes but is not limited
to the following:
1) The manner of weekly inspections the New Decontamination Pad, including the leak
detection system and concrete integrity of the decontamination pad.
2) Within 30 calendar days of issuance of the Permit, the Permittee shall submit an
updated Contingency Plan that clarifies what steps will be taken if there is water
found within the leak detection system and if discrepancies are observed on the
concrete pad.
3) 'Annual Inspection - the New Decontamination Pad will be taken out of service and
inspected annually during the second quarter, to ensure integrity of the wash pad's
exposed concrete surface. Ifdiscrepancies are identified [i.e. crack in the concrete
with greater than l/8 inch separation (width) or any significant deterioration or
damage of the pad surface], repairs shall be made prior to resuming the use of the
facility. The inspection findings, any repairs required, and repairs completed shall be
included in the in the 2no Quarter DMT Monitoring Report due September l, 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 l0 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.
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 integnty of the steel tank. The inspection findings, any
repairs required, and repairs completed shall be included in the in the 2nd Quarter DMT
Monitoring Report due September 1, of each calendar year.
Installation of New Groundwater Monitoring Wells - the Permittee shall install at least
three hydraulically downgradient wells adjacent to Tailings Cell 48, in accordance with
the following requirements :
a) New Compliance Monitoring Wells MW-33 and MW-34 - install two new
5.
6.
36
Part I.H
Permit No. UGW370004
compliance monitoring wells (MW-33 and MW-34) prior to placement of tailings and
wastewater in Cell48. The locations of the wells MW-33 and MW-34 shall be the
same as shown on Figure 4 of the February 8,2010 submittal by Hydro Geo Chem
Inc. Said monitoring wells shall:
l) Provide early detection of tailings cell contamination of shallow groundwater
from Tailings Cell 48.
2) Provide discrete groundwater monitoring for tailings Cell 48.
3) Comply with the design, construction, and development requirements found in
Part I.8.4 of this Permit.
b) Within 45 calendar days of completing well installation, submit a monitoring well As-
Built report for wells MW-33 and MW-34 to document said well construction for
Executive Secretary approval. Said report shall comply with the requirements of Part
I.F.6. The As-Built report shall be approved by the Executive Secretary before
placement of tailings or wastewater in Tailings Cell 48. In the event the Executive
Secretary requires additional information, the Permittee will provide all requested
information within a time frame approved by the Executive Secretary.
c) New Compliance Monitoring Well MW-35 - before placement of tailings or
wastewater in Tailings Cell48, the Permittee shall submit to the Executive Secretary
for approval a proposed location for new compliance monitoring well MW-35.
Installation of well MW-35 shall be completed within 30 calendar days of Executive
Secretary approval of said location. The exact location of the well MW-35 shall be
determined after consideration of hydrogeologic information acquired through
installation / development of wells MW-33 and MW-3 4 and other related field
investigations. The design, construction and development of well MW-35 shall. comply with the requirements of Part I.E.4 of this Permit.
d) Within 45 calendar days of completing installation of well MW-35, the Permittee
shall submit a monitoring well As-Built report to document said well construction for
Executive Secretary approval. Said report shall comply with the requirements of Part
I.F.6. In the event the Executive Secretary requires additional information, the
Permittee will provide all requested information within a time frame approved by the
Executive Secretary.
e) The Permittee shall provide at least a7 calendar day written notice to allow the
Executive Secretary to observe all drilling and well installation activities. In the event
the Executive Secretary determines that additional monitoring wells are required,
these new wells will be installed and related As-Built Report(s) submitted (for
approval) within a time frame approved by the Executive Secretary.
7. Background Groundwater Quality Report for New Monitoring Wells - within 30 calendar
days of receipt of written Executive Secretary approval for use of Tailings Cell 48, the
Permittee shall commence a quarterly groundwater sampling program that will comply
with the following Permit requirements:
a) Routine groundwater compliance monitoring requirements of Part LE.1.
b) Well monitoring procedure requirements of Part I.8.5.
5t
Part LH
Permit No. UGW370004
c) After completion of eight consecutive quarters of groundwater sampling and analysis of
these new wells (MW-33, MW-34 and MW-35), the Permitt"" ihull submit a
Background Report for Executive Secretary approval, that will include:
1) Data preparation and statistical analysis of groundwater quality data, including, but
not limited to, evaluation of data characteristics and internal data consistincy,
treatment of non-detectable values, and statistical methods used. These statistics shall
be calculated using the Decision Tree/Flowchart used for the previous Background
Reports that was conditionally approved by the DRC on August 24,2007.
2) Shallow aquifer average linear groundwater velocity calculated for the new wells,
based on well specific hydraulic conductivity, hydraulic gradient, and effective
aquifer porosity.
d) If after review of the report, and the Executive Secretary determines that additional
information is required, the Permittee shall provide all requested information, resolve all
issues identified, and re-submit the report for Executive Secretary review and approvalwithin a timeframe approved by the Executive Secretary. After approval of this ieport,
the Executive Secretarywill re-open this Permit and establish an appropriatemonitoring
frequency in accordance with the criteria found in Part LE.l(btor (c), and establish
Groundwater Compliance Limits in Table 2 for the each of the new wells.
8. Revised BAT, Monitoring, Operations, and Maintenance Plan for Cells 44 and 48 - prior
to any tailings or wastewater disposal in Cell 48, the Permittee shall submit and receiue
Executive Secretary approval of a revised Cell4A BAT, Monitoring, Operations and
Maintenance Plan, and a Cell 48 BAT, Monitoring, Operations and Maintenance plan.
At a minimum, said plans must include:
Description of the minimum required qualifications, experience, definition of roles
and responsibilities of all personnel acting in liner repair activities with respect to
construction Quality Assurance Plans (ceA/ec plans) prepared by Geosyntec
consultants, dated June 2007 (see Table 5) and August 2009 (see Table 6).
Certification of each Liner Repair Report by a Utah Licensed Professional Engineer,
pursuant to Pdrts I.E.8 and I.8.12 of this Permit, and subsequent submittal thereof to
the Executive Secretary for approval in accordance with Part I.F.3 of the permit.
c) For Cell 44, the plan shall include all related elements described in parts I.D.6 and
I.E.8 of the Permit.
d) For Cell 48, the plan shall include all related elements described in LD.l3 and LE.l2
of the Permit.
g. Cell 48 As-Built Report - before any disposal of wastes or wastewaters into Cell 48, the
Permittee shall submit an engineering As-Built report to document all construction
activities, for Executive Secretary review and approval. Any deviations from the
Executive Secretary approved engineering design and/or specifications will be clearly
disclosed and described. Said report shall be certified by a Utah licensed professional
Engineer. If after review of the As-Built report, and the Executive Secretary determines
38
a)
b)
Part LH
Permit No. UGW370004
that additional information is required, the Permittee shall provide all requested
information, and resolve all issues identified, before Cell48 is put into service.
10. Additional Hydrogeologic Investigation and Report - prior to any
disposal in Cell 48, the permittee shall:
Conduct additional field investigations to confirm elevation survey data for springs
and seeps at the margin of White Mesa, including, but not limited to, Cottonwood
Seep and/or Westwater Seep and Ruin Spring. The purpose of such studies will be to
detJrmine representative elevation of shallow groundwater and the upper geologic
contact of the Brushy Basin Shale Member of the Morrison Formation at these seeps
and springs.
Provide written explanation and resolution of final survey data for seeps and Ruin
Spring and shall use appropriate data points to construct a representative Brushy
Basin/Burro Canyon geologic contact surface map of White Mesa that includes, but
is not limited to, areas west and southwest of the tailings management cell areas,
including Cell 48. The geologic contact surface map shall include data from all
nearby monitoring wells, seeps and springs;
Submit a report to the Executive Secretary for approval that demonstrates compliance
with the requirements described above. Said report shall be signed and certified
(stamped) by a Utah Licensed Geologist or Professional Engineer, and shall: 1)
resolve the apparent uncertainties associated with local geologic structural directions
/ gradient of the Brushy Basin/Burro Canyon geologic contact of the local perched
water system and its relationship to seeps located west and southwest of the tailings
management cells and Ruin Spring, 2) identiff the closest point(s) of surface
discharge of groundwater for the White Mesa perched water system (point of
exposure), and 3) estimate travel time for shallow groundwater to reach the nearest
rrrifu"" discharge point(s). tn the event that the Executive Secretary determines that
additional information is necessary, the Permittee shall submit all requested
information on a time frame approved by the Executive Secretary.
11. Corrections to Engineering Drawing Sheet 6 of 8 - prior to construction of Cell 48, the
Permittee shall revise Cross-section B-7 presented in Engineering Drawing Sheet 6 of 8 and
any related technical specifications, to reflect the following changes:
(a)Both cushion geotextile material flaps must be extended at least l-foot laterally
beyond the sewn seam at the right (north) side of toe of the drainage aggregate
windrow, and
Sandbags placed on both the right (north) and left (south) side of the drainage
aggregate windrow, must be placed and abutted continuously along the length of the
windrow.
or wastewater
a)
b)
c)
o)
39
B.
C.
Part II
Permit No. UGW370004
PART II. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
A. RrpnBsENTATrvE SRNmrnqc. Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements
established under Part I shall be representative of the monitored activity.
G.
ANervlcel- PROCEDURES. Water sample analysis must be conducted according to test
procedures specified under UAC R3 17 -6-6.3.12 unless other test procedures have been specified
in this Permit.
PpNerrms FoR TAMPEnwG. 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.
RrpoRrnqc 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 l, December 1, and March l.
CowrreNCE 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.
ApornoNel MONITORING BY THE PEnurrrBr. If the Permittee monitors any pollutant more
frequently than required by this Permit, using approved test procedures as specified in this
Permit, the results ofthis monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting ofthe data
submitted. Such increased frequency shall also be indicated.
Rrconps CoNreNrs.
l. 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 analyical techniques or methods used; and,
f) The results of such analyses.
D.
E.
F.
40
Oo"n,,
Permit No. UGW370004
H. RrrgNloN oF RrcoRos. The Permittee shall retain records of all monitoring information,
including all calibration and maintenance records and copies of all reports required by this
Permit, and records of all dataused to complete the application for this Permit, for aperiod 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. Noucr oFNONCOMPLIANCE RTPORTNVC.
L 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 Quality24-hournumber, [phone], orto the Division ofWater Quality,
Ground Water Protection Section at [phone], during normal business hours (8:00 am
- 5:00 pm Mountain Time).
2. A written submission shall also be provided to the Executive Secretary within five calendar
days of the time that the Permittee becomes aware of the circumstances. The written
submission shall contain:
a) A description of the noncompliance and its cause;
b) The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times;
c) The estimated time noncompliance is expected to continue if it has not been corrected;
and,
d) Steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the
noncompliance.
3. Reports shall be submitted to the addresses in Part II.D, Reporting of Monitoring Results.
J. Orngn NoNcotwrtaNcE Rpponrwc. lnstances of noncompliance not required to be reported
within 5 calendar days, shall be reported at the time that monitoring reports for Part II.D are
submitted.
K. INsppcloN AND ENrny. The Permittee shall allow the Executive Secretary, or an authorized
representative, upon the presentation of credentials and other documents as maybe 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.
41
Part III
Permit No. UGW370004
PART III. COMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITIES
A. DurY To COMPLY. The Permittee must comply with all conditions of this permit. Any permit
noncompliance constitutes a violation of the Act and is grounds for enforcement action; forpermit termination, revocation and re-issuance, or modification; or for denial of a permit renewalapplication' The Permittee shall give advance notice to the Executive Secretary of the Division ofWater Quality of any planned changes in the permitted facility or activity which may result innoncompliance with Permit requirements.
B. PrNerrres FoR VtoleuoNs oF PERMIT CoNDmoNs. The Act provides that any person whoviolates a Permit condition implementing provisions of the Act is subject to a civiipenalty not toexceed $10'000 per day of such violation. Any person who willfuity or negligently violatesPermit conditions is subject to a fine not exceeding $25,000 per day tf uiotution. Any personconvicted under Section 19-5-115 of the Act a second time shall te punished by a fine notexceeding $50,000 per day. Nothing in this Permit shall be construed to relieve the permittee ofthe civil or criminal penalties for noncompliance.
c. NBro ro HALT oR REOUCB ACTTVITY NOT e DrrrNsr. 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 activityin order to maintain compliance with the conditions olthis permit.
D' Durv ro MmGArr. The Permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent anydischarge in violation of this Permit which has a reasonable Hkllihood of adversely affectin!human health or the environment.
E' PRoppR opsnanoN AND MAINTENANCE. The Permittee shall at all times properly operate andmaintain all facilities and systems of treatment and control (and related upprrrt.nurces)which areinstalled or used by the Permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions of this permit.
Proper operation and maintenance also includes adequate laboratory controls and qualityassurance procedures. This provision requires the operation of back-up tr auxiliary faciliiies orsimilar systems which are installed by a Permittei only when the operation is necessary toachieve compliance with the conditions of the permit.
42
Q*,,
Permit No. UGW370004
A.
B.
D.
E.
C.
PART IV. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
preNNrn CruNCrs. 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.
ANucpergD NoNCoMpLIANCE. The Permittee shall give advance notice of any planned changes
in the permitted facility or activity which may result in noncompliance with Permit requirements.
pgnunAcnoNs. This permit maybe 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 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.
Dury ro pRovnp tNroRrrleloN. The Permittee shall furnish to the Executive Secretary, within a
reasonable time, any information which the Executive Secretary may request to determine
whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and reissuing, or terminating this Permit, or to
determine compliance with this Permit. The Permittee shall also furnish to the Executive
Secretary, upon request, copies of records required to be kept by this Permit.
F. ornEn NFoRMATToN. 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 ihe Executive Secretary, it shall promptly submit such facts or information'
G. SIcNeToRyREeSIREMENTS. 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 offtcer;
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 6e signed by a person described above or by a duly authorized representative
of that person. A person is a duly authorized representative only if:
a) The authori zatron is made in writing by a person described above and submitted to the
Executive Secretary, and,
43
Part IV
Permit No. UGW370004
I.
b) The authori zation specified either an individual or a position having responsibility for theoverall 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 equivalentresponsibility, or an individual or position having overall responsibility for
environmental matters for the company. (A duly authorized representatir" rnuy thus be
either a named individual or any individual occupying u ru-"d 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 thefacility, a new authorization satisfuing the requirements of Part IV.G.2 must be submitted to
the Executive Secretaryprior to or together with anyreports, information, or applications tobe signed by an authorized representative.
4. Certification. Any person signing a document under this section shall make the following
certification:
"I certifo under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared
under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assuri that
qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on myinquiry 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 ofmy
knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significantpenalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and
imprisonment for knowing violations. "
PsNer1-ms FoR FALSIFICATION oF REPoRTs. The Act provides that any person who knowingly
makes any false statement, representation, or certification in any recora or other documentsubmitted or required to be maintained under this Permit, includingmonitoring reports or reportsof compliance or noncompliance shall, upon conviction be punished by a fine oinot more than
$ 10,000 per violation, or by imprisonment for not more than six months per violation, orbyboth.
Aven-esurY oF REpoRrs. Except for data determined to be confidential by the permittee, allreports 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.
PRopBRrv RIcurs. 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 properry oiany invasion ofpersonal rights, nor any infringement of federal, state or local laws oi regulations.
SnwReeLlrY. The provisions of this Permit are severable, and if anyprovision ofthis permit, orthe 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 notbe affected thereby.
L. TnaNsrpRs. This Permit may be automatically transferred to a new permittee if:
I . The current Permittee notifies the Executive Secretary at least 30 calendar days in advance of
the proposed transfer date;
44
H.
J.
K.
Q*,u
Permit No. UGW370004
2. The notice includes a written agreement between the existing and new Permittee containing a
specific date for transfer of permit responsibility, coverage, and liabilitybetween them, and,
3. The Executive Secretary does not notifu the existing Permittee and the proposed new
permittee of his or her intent to modifo, 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. Srers 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 19-5-1 15 ofthe
Act.
N. R_soppNER 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.
45
DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
PUBLIC NOTICE OF A MODIFICATION TO THE
GROUND WATER QUALTTY DISCHARGE PERMTT NO. UGW370004
AND AMENDMENT TO
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE NO. UT19OO479
Purpose of Public Nqtice
The Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ is soliciting comments on its
proposed modifications to the existing Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit (Permit)
and an amendment to the Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (Licensee) Radioactive Materials
License (RML UTI 900479).
Licensee and Permittee Information:
NAME:
MAILING ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
FACILITY LOCATION:
PERMIT NO.:
LICENSE NO.:
Denison Mines (USA) Corporation [DUSA]
1050 lTth Sreet, Suite 950, Denver, CO 80265
303-628-7798
Blanding Utah
ucw370004
uT1900479
Major changes associated with this Permit modification include, but are not limited to:o Definition of Engineering Design Standards for new Tailings Cell 48
Definition of BAT performance standards for Tailings Cell 48
Installation of at least three new groundwater compliance monitoring wells
hydraulically downgradient of Cell 48
Quarterly groundwater sampling program in the three new monitoring wells at
Cell 48 and later submittal of a background groundwater quality reporto Submittal of a Tailings Cell 48 BAT Monitoring, Operations and Maintenance
Plano Submittal of an additional hydrogeologic investigation study report of nearby
seeps and Ruin Springo Submittal of an engineering As-Built Report to document Cell 4B construction
Major changes associated with this License Amendment (#4) include, but are not limited
to:
Prohibition from use and/or operation of any tailings disposal cell, or related new
permanent fixture or facility, without prior approval of financial surety
Submittal of an updated Reclamation Plan and Specifications, for approval to
include Tailings Cell 48
Changes in tailings cell wastewater freeboard requirements
a
a
a
a Submit for approval written Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for:
system settlement monitoring, 2) dike movement monitoring, and 3)
improvements to disposal practices for by-product material from in-situ
facilities.o Improvements to content for the Annual Technical Evaluation Report
1) cover
leach
Public comments are invited any time prior to 5:00 p.m. on May 10, 2010. Written
comments may be directed to the Division of Radiation Control, P.O. 144850, Salt Lake
City, UT 84114-4850. A public meeting will be held on May 4,2010 from 7:00 to 9:00
p.m. at the Blanding Arts and Events Center located 715 West 200 South, Blanding,
Utah. Public comments for the License will be received from 7:00 to 8:00 p.m. Public
comments for the Permit will be received from 8:00 to 9:00 p.m. All oral and written
comments received at the meeting will be considered in formulation of final
determinations to be imposed on the Permit and License.
Further Information
Additional information may be obtained upon request by calling Phil Goble at (801) 536-
4044 or via email at [e-mail]. Written requests for information can also be
directed to the aforementioned address. Related documents are available for review
during normal business hours at the Division of Radiation Control, 168 N. 1950 W. Salt
Lake City, Utah. The draft Permit modification, Statement of Basis, License
Amendment, and Safety Evaluation Report is also available on the internet at
www.radiationcontrol.utah. gov
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals with special needs
(including auxiliary communicative aids and services) should contact Brooke Baker,
Office of Human Resources at (80 I ) 536-4412 (TDD 536-4414) at least l0 working days
prior to close of the comment period.
DRC-043
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. Title 19, Chapter 3 and the Radiation Control Rules, Utah Administrative
Code R313, and in reliance on statements and represortations heretofore made by the licensee
designated below, a license is hereby issued authorizing such licensee to transfer, receive, possess and
use the radioactive material designated below; and to use such radioactive material for the purpose(s)
and at the place(s) designated below. This licensee is subject to all applicable rules, and orders now or
hereafter in effect and to any conditions specified below.
** x* *** r<***{<*r<d(******************r<*********{.*{<***********.*******{.:l<{<*.**{<***{<,Fr<**{.*
3. License Number UT1900479LICENSEE
1. Name Denison Mines (USA)
CorP.
2. Address 6425Highway l9l
P.O. Box 809
Blanding, UT 84511
4. Expiration Date
March 31, 2007 (under timely renewal)
* * * * * * * * * * * * r( r< r< :1. {< * {< {< r< * * * * r< r< {< {< *,l<,1. * * * :l< *
5. License Category 2-b
6. Radioactive material
(element and mass number)
)
)
)
)
)
7. Chemical and/or
physical form
*.***<***********r<r.***{<**<*{<*****:t<'t<***********.d(**:f **{<********<*r<*****r<{€*****{<{<******
8. Maximumquantitylicensee
may possess at any one time
9.1
9.2
Natural Uranium Any Unlimited
****.*r<:|c**:f *d(r<*:1.**{<****** *******rrr<{<*********r<******************d<**{<***r'******'l'*t*
SECTION g: ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITIONS
The authori zedplaceof use shall be the licensee's White Mesa uranium milling facility, located
in San Juan County, Utah.
A11 written notices and reports to the Executive Secretary required under this license, with the
exception of incident and event notifications under R313-15-1202 and R313-19-50 requiring
telephone notification, shall be addressed to the Executive Secretary, Utah Radiation Control
Board, Utah Department of Environmental Quality, 168 North 1950 West, P.O. Box 144850,
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850.
Incident and event notifications that require telephone notification shall be made to the
Executive Secretary at (801)536 -4250 during normal business hours or after hours to the DEQ
Duty Officer at [phone].
The licensee shall conduct operations in accordance with statements, representations, and
conditions contained in the license renewal application submitted by letter to the NRC dated
August 23 , 1991, as revised by submittals to the NRC dated January 13, 1992 and April 7 , 1992,
9.3
9.4
DRC4384
Page2 of20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #IJT1900479
Amendment {3
November22,I994,July27,1995. December13, l996,andDecember3l,l996,andJanuary
30,1997 ,which are hereby incorporated byreference, and for the Standby Trust Agreernent, as
amended, except where superseded by license conditions below.
Whenever the word "will" is used in the above referenced documents, it shall denote a
requirement.
[Applicable NRC Amendment: 2J
A. The licensee may, without prior Executive Secretary-approval, and subject to the
conditions specified in Part B of this condition:
(1) Make changes in the facility or process, as presented in the application.
(2) Make changes in the procedures presented in the application.(3) Conduct tests or experiments not presented in the application.
B. The licensee shall file an application for an amendment to the license, unless the
following conditions are satisfi ed.
(1) The change, test, or experiment does not conflict with
specifically stated in this license, or impair the licensee's
applicable regulations.
(2) There is no degradation in the essential safety or environmental commitments in
the license application or provided by the approved reclamation plan.
(3) The change, test, or experiment is consistent with the conclusions of actions
analyzed and selected in the Environmental Assessment dated February 1997.
The licensee's determinations concerning Part B of this condition shall be made by a
"Safety and Environmental Review Panel (SERP)." The SERP shall consist of a
minimum of three individuals. One mernber of the SERP shall have expertise in
management and shall be responsible for managerial and financial approval changes;
one member shall have expertise in operations and/or construction and shall have
responsibility for implernenting any operational changes; and, one member shall be the
corporate radiation safety officer (CRSO) or equivalent, with the responsibility of
assuring changes conform to radiation safety and environmental requirements.
Additional members maybe included in the SERP as appropriate, to address technical
aspects such as health physics, groundwater hydrology, surface-water hydrology,
specific earth sciences, and other technical disciplines. Ternporary members or
permanent members, other than the three above-specified individuals, may be
consultants.
any requirement
ability to meet all
C.
9.5
DRC43Q4
Page 3 of20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #W2
Amendment 43
D. The licensee shall maintain records of any changes made pursuantto this conditionuntil
license termination. These records shall include written safety and environmental
evaluations, made by the SERP, that provide the basis for determining that changes are
in compliance with the requirements referred to in Part B ofthis condition. The licensee
shall furnish, in an annual report to the Executive Secretary, a description of such
changes, tests, or experiments, including a summary of the safety and environmental
evaluation of each. In addition, the licensee shall annually submit to the Executive
Secretary changed pages to the Operations Plan and Reclamation Plan of the approved
license application to reflect changes made under this condition. Annual reports shall
address the previous calendar year and be submitted no later than March 31 each year.
The licensee's SERP shall function in accordance with the standard operating
procedures submitted by letter to the NRC dated June 10, 1997.
[Applicable NRC Amendments: 3J [Applicqible UDRC-Amendment 3J
The licensee shall at all times maintain a financial surety, approved bv the Executive Secretar.v.
consistent with UAC R3l3-24-4 ( 1 0CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria 9 and 1 0, as incorporated by
reference), that is adequate to cover the estimated costs, accomplished by a third party, for
decommissioning and decontamination of the mill and mill site, reclamation of any tailings or
waste disposal areas, groundwater restoration as warranted, and the long-term surveillance fee.
The Licensee is prohibited from use and/or operation of anv tailinqs disposal cell. or related
new permanent fixture or facilitlz not already accounted for bv the currentlv approved surety.
without prior submittal and Executive Secretary approval of written evidence of adequate
financial surety. Within 60 calendar days of Executive Secretary approval of a revised
reclamation/decommissioning plan, the licensee shall submit written evidence of an adequate
surety regarding the newly approved plan.
Annual updates to the surety amount, required by UAC R313-24-4 (10 CFR 40, Appendix A,
Criteria 9 and 10, as incorporated by reference), shall be submitted for Executive Secretary
approval by March 4 of each year. Within 30 calendar days of Executive Secretary approval of
4n the-annual update of surety cost estimates, the licensee shall submit written evidence of an
adequate surety for Executive Secre .
Along with each proposed revision or annual update, the licensee shall submit supporting
documentation showing a breakdown of the costs and the basis for the cost estimates with
adjustments for inflation, maintenance of a minimum 15 percent contingency fee, changes in
engineering plans, activities performed and any other conditions affecting estimated costs for
site closure. The basis for the cost estimate is the current Executive Secretary-approved
reclamation/decommissioning plan or Executive Secretary-approved revisions to the plan and
guidance contained inNUREG-l620,"Standard Review Plan for the Review of a Reclamation
9.6
DRC4304
Page 4 of20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #W2
Amendment !3
Plan for Mill Tailings Sites under Title II of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of
1978;',
The currently approved surety instrument, a Performance Bond issued by National Union
Fire lnsurance Company in favor of the Executive Secretary, and the associated Standby Trust
Agreement, shall be continuously maintained bv the Licensee in an amount not less than the
amount currently approved by the Executive Secretary pursuant to the requirements of
UAC R313 -24-4 (10 CFR 40, Appendix A,
Criteria 9 and 10 as incorporated by reference),
@
[Applicable NRC Amendments: 2, 3, 5, I 3, ] 5, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25J
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: lJ [Applicable UDRC Amendment 3J
Standard operating procedures shall be established and followed for all operational process
activities involving radioactive materials that are handled, processed, or stored. SOPs for
operational activities shall enumerate pertinent radiation safety practices to be followed.
Additionally, written procedures shall be established for non-operational activities to include in-
plant and environmental monitoring, bioassay analyses, and instrument calibrations. Anup-to-
date copy of each written procedure shall be kept in the mill area to which it applies.
All written procedures for both operational and non-operational activities shall be reviewed and
approved in writingbytheradiation safetyofficer(RSO)beforeimplementation and whenever a
change in procedure is proposed to ensure that proper radiation protection principles are being
applied. In addition, the RSO shall perform a documented review of all existing operating
procedures at least annually.
As per the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) negotiated by the Utah State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), the NRC
and Energy Fuels Nuclear lnc. (EFN) and ratified on August 20,1979 and as amended on May
3, 1983 and substantially as implemented in NRC License SUA-1358.
Before engaging in any activity not previously assessed by the Executive Secretary, the licensee
shall administer a cultural resource inventory. All disturbances associated with the proposed
development will be completed in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (as
amended) and its implementing regulations, and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act
(as amended) and its implernenting regulations.
ln order to ensure that no unapproved disturbance of cultural resources occurs, any work
resulting in the discovery of previously unknown cultural artifacts shall cease. The artifacts
shall be inventoried and evaluated in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act (as
9.7
DRC4304
Page 5 of20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET License#W
Amendment €
amended), and no disturbance shall occur until the licensee has received authorization from the
Executive Secretary to proceed.
The licensee shall avoid by project design, where feasible, the archeological sites designated
o'contributing" in the report submitted by letter to the NRC dated July 28, 1988. When it is not
feasible to avoid a site designated "contributing" in the report, the licensee shall institute adata
recovery program for that site based on the research design submitted by letter from C. E. Baker
of Energy Fuels Nuclear to Mr. Melvin T. Smith, Utah State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO), dated April 13, 1981.
The licensee shall recoverthrough archeological excavation all "contributing" sites listedinthe
report which are located in or within 100 feet of borrow areas, stockpile areas, construction
areas, or the perimeter of the reclaimed tailings impoundment. Data recovery fieldwork at each
site meeting these criteria shall be completed prior to the start of any project related disturbance
within 100 feet of the site, but analysis and report preparation need not be complete.
Additionally, the licensee shall conduct such testing as is required to enable the Executive
Secretary to determine if those sites designated as "Undetermined" in the report and located
within 100 feet ofpresent or known future construction areas are of such significance to warrant
their redesignation as "contributing." In all cases, such testing shall be completed before any
aspect of the undertaking affects a site.
Archeological contractors shall be approved in writing by the Utah SHPO. The Utah SHPO will
approve an archeological contractor who meets the minimum standards of the State of Utah as
the principal investigator.
9.8 The licensee is hereby authorized to possess byproduct material in the form of uranium waste
tailings and other uranium byproduct waste generated by the licensee's milling operations
authorized by this license. Mill tailings shall not be transferred from the site without specific
prior approval of the Executive Secretary in the form of a license amendment. The licensee
shall maintain a permanent record of all transfers made under the provisions of this condition.
9.9 The licensee is hereby exempted from the requirements of R313-15-902(5) for areas within the
mill, provided that all entrances to the mill are conspicuously posted in accordance with R313-
15-902(5) and with the words, "Any area within this mill may contain radioactive material".
9.10 Release of equipment or packages from the restricted area shall be in accordance with the NRC
l:Guidelines for Decontamination of Facilities and Equipment Prior to Release for Unrestricted
Use or Termination of Licenses for Byproduct, Source, or Special Nuclear Mateial," dated May
9.11
DRC4394
Page 6 of20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET License#W
Amendment 43
7987 , or suitable alternative procedures approved by the Executive Secretary prior to any such
release.
Updated Reclamation Plan and Specifications - the licensee shall complete and submit an
updated Reclamation Plan and Specifications for the White Mesa Mill Facility, for Executive
Secretary approval on or before June 1.2010. The plan and specifications shall include
information identified in this condition and information that is adequate for determinine
financial suretv requirements for the White Mesa Mill with all tailines manaeement cells.
includine Cells 4A and 4B. and any new features or facilities that are constructed in conjunction
with operation of Cells 4,A. and 48. Said Reclamation Plan and specifications shall be approved
bv the Executive Secretary before disposal of anv tailines or wastewater in Cell 48. The final
updated reclamation plan shall @the information contained in the
May+qg+Reclamation P lan
+99qaa+Revision 3.0 submittedtotheNRC onJuly 17,2000-.. and anupdate to R
Reclamation Plan that was prepared bv the Licensee Jullz 25. 2008. and approved on Auzust 4.
2008 (now referred to as Rev. 3. 1 ). After revision of Rev. 3 . 1 . the updated Reclamation Plan
shall be referred to as Rev. 3.2" and shall contain the followine information:
A. Information pertainine to the desien and use of Cells 4,{ and 48 for tailines
manaeement/disposal. including information on the desien of the final top cap(s). and
desien of the final cap side slopes includins rock sizing and fill depth. and the
estimated quantities of materials required for final cover construction and final erosion
protection. adequate for assessinq the needs ofthe associated financial suretlzbased on
the cunently approved cover desiqn extende
B. Estimated costs for constructine the final cover system and for installine final
stormwater control systems for the tailinqs manaqement cells. includins Cells 4,{ and
48. followins completion of tailings management operations:
C. Information on reclamation activities required for reclaiming any new permanent
fixtures or facilities that have been installed or are contemplated to be constructed in
coniunction with construction and operation of Cells 4,A and 48. and the financial suretlz
needs associated therewith: and
D. Information demonstratinq the adequaclz of the lone-term care fund with respect to the
White Mesa Mill Facility that includes consideration of Cells 4,A. and 48. the final cover
and drainage svstems associated with these cells and anv other new structure or facility
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
DRC43Q4
PageT of20
License#W
Amendment 43
SECTION
10.1 A.
C.
B.
installed or contemplated to be constructed in conjunction with the construction and
operation of these two cells.
fApplicable UDRC Amendment: 4l
l0: OPERATIONAL CONTROLS, LIMITS, AND RESTRICTIONS
The mill production rate shall not exceed 4380 tons of yellowcake per year.
The licensee maynot dispose of anymaterial on site that is not "byproduct material," as
that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. Section 20la@)Q) (Atomic Energy Act of 1953,
Section 1 1(e)(2)).
The licensee may not receive or process arry altemate feed material without first
applyng for and obtaining approval of a license amendment. For any such proposal, the
licensee shall demonstrate that it will comply with Condition 10.1(8). Any such
demonstration shall include:
(1)
o)
Dernonstration of compliance with the NRC Regulatory Summary 2000-23
Recent Changes to Uranium Recovery Policy, November 30, 2000; and
Demonstration of compliance with the November 22, 1999 Protocol for
Determining Whether Alternate Feed Materials are Listed Hazardous Wastes, as
approved by the Utah Division of Solid andHazardous Waste on December 7,
1999.
D. Maximum quantities of feed material stored on the mill site, including alternate feed
materials or other ores, shall not exceed the total material storage quantity found in the
currently approved mill surety pursuant to License Condition 9.5 , without prior approval
of the Executive Secretary.
E. The licensee may not receive any alternate feed materials or other ores ifthose materials
would cause the facility to exceed the tailings cell disposal capacity established by the
currently approved reclamation plan and/or the annual surety report required by License
Conditions 9.11, and 9.5, respectively, without prior approval of the Executive
Secretary.
tApplicable UDRC Amendment: 2J
DRC4304
Page 8 of20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET License#W
Amendment !3
10.2 All liquid effluents from mill process buildings, with the exception of sanitary wastes, shall be
returned to the mill circuit or discharged to the tailings impoundment.
10.3 Freeboard limits. stormwater and wastewater manaeement for the tailines cells shall be
determined as follows:
The Freeboard limit for Cell 1 shall be set annually in accordance with the procedures
set out in Section 3.0 to Appendix E of the previously approved NRC license
application, including the January 10, 1990 Drainage Report. Discharqe of an)z surface
water or wastewater from Cell 1 is expresslv prohibited.
The freeboard limit for Cells 3. 4A.. and 48 shall be recalculated annually in accordance
with the procedures approved by the Executive Secretarv @
Said calculations for freeboard limits shall be
submitted as part ofthe{annual Technical EvaluationReport (ATER). as describe
Condition 12.3 below.
C. The discharee of any surface water. stormwater or wastewater from Cells 3. 4,{. and 48
shall only be throueh an Executive Secretary authorized spillway structure.
_ Saie repert snaU U
yeefa
[Applicable NRC Amendment: 16J [Applicable UDRC Amendment 3]J$ppliepbk
UDRC Amendment: 4l
10.4 Disposal ofmaterial and equipment generated at the mill site shall be conducted as described in
the licensee's submittals to the NRC dated December 12,1994 and May 23,1995, with the
following addition:
The maximum lift thickness for materials placed over tailings shall be less than 4-feet
thick. Subsequent lifts shall be less than 2-feet thick. Each lift shall be compacted by
tracking of heavy equipment, such as aCatD-6, at least 4 times prior to placement of
subsequent lifts.
10.5 In accordance with the licensee's submittal to the NRC dated May 20,1993, the licensee is
hereby authorized to dispose of byproduct material generated at licensed in-situ leach_(l$!)
facilities, subject to the following conditions:
A.
B.
DRC43q4
Page9 of20
UTAH DIYISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTTVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #WJ900472
Amendment!3
A. Disposal of ISL waste is limited to 5000 cubic yards from a single source.
B. All ISL contaminated equipment shall be dismantled, crushed, or sectioned to minimize
void spaces. Barrels containing waste other than soil or sludges shall be emptied into
the disposal area and the barrels crushed. Barrels containing soil or sludges shall be
verified by the Licensee to be full prior to disposal. Barrels not completely full shall be
filled with tailings or soil_Egtlg_dispggal.
C. All ISL waste shall be buried in Cell No. 3 unless prior written approval is obtained
from the Executive Secretary for altemate burial locations.
D. All disposal activities shall be documented and records thereofffie
documentation shall include descriptions ofthe_!$L waste and the disposal locations, as
well as all actions required by this License condition.
E. The licensee shall also submit for Executive Secretarv approval a revised written
Standard Operatins Procedure (SOP) for ISL disposal on orbefore December 1.2010.
The revised SOP shall describe the documentation required for ISL disposal. which shall
include but is not limited to the followine:
(1) The material disposal area must be located on a tailines beach area of the
disposal cell or on an area of the cell that is underlain bv tailines sands:(2) The elevation of the material disposal area will not exceed the plane or erade of
the elevations of the uppermost flexible membrane liner of the tailines cell:(3) Such ISL byproduct material will be sepregated from anv mill material and
equipment disposed of in the cells pursuant to License Condition 10.4. and the
ISL bwroduct material from each in-situ leach source will be segregated from
the byproduct material from all other in-situ leach sources:
(4) Absence of void space inside barrels disposed. includins physical verification
before disposall and(_5) Detailed ensineerine drawinss which demonstrate:
a. There are at least 4 feet of tailines sands under the bottom of each
disposal area: and
b. The bottom of each disposal area is located at least 12 feet from the sides
or dikes of the tailines cell.
F. The Licensee shall notifr the Executive Secretary in writine at least 7 calendar days
prior to the prooosed scheduled date for disposal of anvbyproduct material eenerated at
ISL facilities in the tailinss cells.
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
DRC4304
Page 10 of20
License #W900479
Amendment 43
An annual summary of the amounts of waste disposed of from off-site ISL generators
shall be sent to the Executive Secretary on or before November
fAoplicable UDRC Amendment: 4J
10.6 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materials from the Allied Signal
Corporation's Metropolis, Illinois, facility in accordance with the amendment request to the
NRC dated June 15, 1993.
10.7 The licensee is authorizedto receive and process source material from Allied Signal, lnc. of
Metropolis, Illinois, in accordance with the amendment request to the NRC dated Septernber 20,
1996, and amended by letters to the NRC dated October 30, 1996 and November ll, 1996.
10.8 The licensee is authoized to receive and process source material, in accordance with the
amendment request to the NRC dated March 5,1997.
[Applicable NRC Amendments: IJ
10.9 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from Cabot Performance
Materials' facility near Boyertown, Pennsylvania, in accordance with the amendment request to
the NRC dated April 3, 1997, as amended by submittals to the NRC dated May 19, 1997 and
August 6,1997.
[Applicable NRC Amendments: 4J
10.10 The licensee is authorizedto receive and process source material from the Ashland 2 Formerly
Utilized Sites Rernedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site, located near Tonawanda, New York,
in accordance with the amendment request to the NRC dated May 8, 1998, as amended by the
submittals to the NRC dated May 27,1998, June 3, 1998, and June 11, 1998.
[Applicable NRC Amendments: 6J
10.11 The licensee is authorizedto receive and process source material from Cameco Corporation's
Blind River and Port Hope facilities, located in Ontario, Canada, in accordance with the
amendment request to the NRC dated June 4, 1998, and by the submittals to the NRC dated
September 14,1998, September 16, 1998, September 25, 1998, October 7 ,1998, and October 8,
1998.
However, the licensee is not authorized to receive or process from these facilities, the crushed
carbon anodes identified in these submittals, either as a separate material or mixed in with
material already approved for receipt or processing.
DRC43q4
Page 1l of20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #A11900479
Amendment {3
LO.l2 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from the Ashland 1 and
Seaway Area D Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site, located near
Tonowanda, New York, in accordance with statements, representations, and commitments
contained in the amendment request to the NRC dated October 15, 1998, as amended by letters
to the NRC dated November 23, 1998, November 24,1998, Decernber 23,1998, January 11,
1999, January 27,1999, and February 1,1999.
[Applicable NRC Amendment: l}J
10.13 The licensee is authorizedto receive and process source material from the St. Louis Formerly
IJtlhzed Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site, in accordance with statements,
representations, and commitments contained in the amendment request to the NRC dated March
2, 1999, and as amended and supplemented by submittals dated June 21, 1999; June 29, 1999
(2); andJuly 8, 1999. Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the St. Louis FUSRAP site,
the licensee must make a determination that adequate tailings space is available for the tailings
produced from the processing of this material. This determination shall be made based on a
SERP approved internal procedure.
[Applicable NRC Amendments: 13, 14J
10.14 The licensee is authorizedto receive and process source material from the Linde Formerly
Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site, in accordance with statements,
representations, and commitments contained in the NRC amendment request dated March 16,
2000, and as amended and supplemented by submittals dated Apil26,2000, May 15, 2000,
June 16, 2000, June 19,2000, and June 23,2000.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Linde FUSRAP site, the licensee must make a
determination that adequate tailings space is available for the tailings produced from the
processing of this material. This determination shall be made based on a SERP-approved
internal procedure. Design changes to the cells or the reclamation plan require the licensee to
submit an amendment request for Executive Secretary review and approval.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Linde FUSRAP site, the licensee must require
that the generator of the material certiff that the material does not contain listed hazardous
waste as defined under the Resource Conservation and RecoveryAct (RCRA) per a Radioactive
Material Profi le Record.
[Applicable NRC Amendment: 14J
10.15 The licensee is authorizedto receive and process source material from the W.R. Grace site
located in Chattanooga, Tennessee, in accordance with staternents, representations, and
commitments contained in the amendment request to the NRC dated April 12,2000, as
DRC4394
Page 12 of 20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET License#W
Amendment {3
amended and supplemented by submittals dated Api124,2000, Api126,2000, May 5,2000,
November 16,2000, and December 18, 2000.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the W.R. Grace site, the licensee must make a
determination that adequate tailings space is available for the tailings produced from the
processing of this material. This determination shall be made based on the SERP-approved
standard operating procedure for determination of tailings capacity. Design changes to the cells
or the reclamation plan require the licensee to submit an amendment request for Executive
Secretary review and approval.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the W.R. Grace site, the licensee must require that
the generator of the material certifr that the material does not contain listed hazardous waste as
defined under the Resource Conservation and RecoveryAct (RCRA) per aRadioactive Material
Profile Record.
[Applicable NRC Amendment: l7J
10.16 The licensee is authorizedto receive and process source material from the Heritage Minerals
lncorporated site, in accordance with statements, representations, and commitments contained in
the amendmentrequest to theNRC dated July 5,2000, and as supplementedbysubmittals dated
November 16,2000, and December 18,2000.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Heritage Minerals Incorporated site, the
licensee must make a determination that adequate tailings space is available for the tailings
produced from the processing of this material. This determination shall be made based on the
SERP-approved standard operating procedure for determination of tailings capacity. Design
changes to the cells or the reclamation plan require the licensee to submit an amendment request
for Executive Secretary review and approval.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Heritage Minerals lncorporated site, the
licensee must require that the generator of the material certifii that the material does not contain
listed hazardous waste as defined under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
per a Radioactive Material Profile Record.
[Applicable NRC Amendment: l8J
10.17 The licensee is authorizedto receive and process source material from the Molycorp site located
in Mountain Pass, California, in accordance with statements, representations, and commitments
contained in the amendment request to the NRC dated December T9,2000, and supplemental
information in letters dated January 29,2001, February 2,2001, March 20,z}}l,August 15,
200I , October 17 , 2001 , and Novemb er 16, 2001 .
DRC4304
Page 13 of20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET License#W
Amendment 43
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Molycorp site, the licensee must make a
determination that adequate tailings space is available for the tailings produced from the
processing of this material. This determination shall be made based on a SERP-approved
internal procedure. Design changes to the cells or the reclamation plan require the licensee to
submit an amendment request for Executive Secretary review and approval.
[Applicable NRC Amendment: 20J
10.18 The licensee is authorizedto receive and process source material from the Maywood site located
in Maywood, New Jersey, in accordance with statements, representations, and commitments
contained in the amendment requests to the NRC dated June 15, 200l,Jvrrc22,200l,August 3,
2001 , and supplemented by letters dated November 19 ,2001 , Decernber 6 ,20}l,December 10,
2001, March 11,2002, and July 1,2002.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Maywood site, the licensee must make a
determination that adequate tailings space is available for the tailings produced from the
processing of this material. This determination shall be made based on a SERP-approved
internal procedure. If such determination requires the licensee to make design changes to the
cells or the reclamation plan, the licensee shall submit an amendment request for Executive
Secretary review and approval.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Maywood site, the licensee must require that
the generator of the material certitr that the material does not contain listed hazardous waste as
defined under the Resource Conservation and RecoveryAct (RCRA) per aRadioactive Material
Profile Record.
[Applicable NRC Amendment: 22J
10.19 The licensee is authorizedto receive and process source material from Ponds 2 and 3 of the
FMRI's Muskogee Facility located in Muskogee, Okalahoma, in accordance with statements,
representations, and commitments contained in the amendment requests and submittals to the
Executive Secretary dated March 7,2005, Jvne22,2005, and April 28,2006.
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 2J
SECTION 11: MONITORING, RECORDING, AND BOOKKEEPING REQUIREMENTS
11.1 The results of sampling, analyses, surveys and monitoring, the results of calibration of
equipment, reports on audits and inspections, all meetings and training courses required by this
license and any subsequent reviews, investigations, and corrective actions, shall be documented.
Unless otherwise specified in the State of Utah regulations all such documentation shall be
maintained for a period of at least five (5) years.
DRC-0304
Page 14 of20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #]-f]900472
Amendment {3
11.2 The licensee shall implement the effluent and environmental monitoring program specified in
Section 5.5 of the renewal application, as amended by the submittal to the NRC dated June 8,
1995, and as revised with the following modifications or additions:
Stack sampling shall include a determination of flow rate.
Surface water samples shall also b e analyzed serniannually for total and dissolved U-nat,
Ra-226, and Th-230, with the exception of the Westwater Creek, which shall be
sampled annually for water or sediments and analyzed as above. A sediment sample
shall not be taken in place of a water sample unless a water sample was not available.
Groundwater sampling shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements in the
Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit No UGW370004.
D. With the exception of groundwater sampling the licensee shall utilize lower limits of
detection in accordance with Section 5 of the NRC Regulatory Guide 4.14, as amended,
for analysis of effluent and environmental samples.
E. The inspections performed semiannually of the critical orifice assembly committed to in
the submittal to the NRC dated March 15, 1986, shall be documented. The critical
orifice assembly shall be calibrated at least every 2 years against a positive displacernent
Roots meter to obtain the required calibration curve.
[Applicable NRC Amendment: 5J [Applicable UDRC Amendment 3J
11.3 The licensee shall implement a monitoring program of the leak detection systems for disposal
Cells 4,A. and 48 in accordance with requirements of the Ground Water Discharee Permit. The
licensee shall implement a monitoring prosram of the leak detection systems for disposal Ceells
7,2,and 3 as follows:
A. The licensee shall measure and record the "depth to fluid" in each of the tailings
disposal cell standpipes on a weekly basis. If sufficient fluid is present in the leak
detection system (LDS) of any cell, the licensee shall pump fluid from the LDS, to the
extent reasonably possible, and record the volume of fluid recovered. Any fluid pumped
from an LDS shall be returned to a disposal cell.
If fluid is pumped from an LDS, the licensee shall calculate the flow rate by dividing the
recorded volume of fluid recovered by the elapsed time since fluid was last pumped or
increases in the LDS fluid levels were recorded, whichever is the more recent. The
licensee shall document the results of this calculation.
A.
B.
C.
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
DRC43q4
Page 15 of20
License#W
Amendment {3
C.
Upon the initial pumping of fluid from an LDS, the licensee shall collect a fluid sample
and analyze the fluid for pH and the parameters listed in paragraph A of this license
condition. The licensee shall determine whether the LDS fluid originated from the
disposal cell by ascertaining if the collected fluid contains elevated levels of the
constituents listed in paragraph A of this license condition or has a pH level less than
5.0. If either elevated constituent levels or a pH less than 5.0 is observed, the licensee
shall assume that the disposal cell is the origin of the fluid.
Ifthe LDS fluid is determined not to have originated from the disposal cell, the licensee
shall continue with weekly measurements of "depth to fluid" in the LDS standpipes.
The licensee shall confrrm, on an annual basis, that fluid from the disposal cell has not
entered the LDS by collecting (to the extent possible) and analyzing an LDS fluid
sample for the above stated parameters.
Upon indication that the LDS fluids originated from the disposal cell, the licensee shall
determine the flow rate through the liner by the calculation method in paragraph B of
this license condition. If the flow rate is equal to or greater than one gallon per minute,
the licensee shall:
(1) Evaluate the cause of the liner distress and take appropriate and timely actions to
mitigate the leak and any consequent potential impacts;
(2) Continue to measure and record LDS "depth to fluid" measurements weekly;
and
(3) Notify the Executive Secretary by telephone within 48 hours, in accordance with
License Condition 9.2, and submit a written report within 30 calendar days of
notiffing the Executive Secretary by telephone, in accordance with License
Condition 9.2. The written report shall include a description of the mitigative
action(s) taken and a discussion of the mitigative action results.
If the calculated flow rate is less than one gallon per minute, the licensee shall continue
with weekly measurements of "depth to fluid" in the LDS standpipes.
D. All sampling, analysis, and evaluation of LDS fluids shall be documented and retained
onsite until license termination for Executive Secretary inspection.
[Applicable NRC Amendment: 8] [Applicable UDRC Amendment jl [Applicable UDRC
Amendment: 4l
ll.4 Annually, the licensee shall collect, during mill operations, a set of air samples covering eight
hours of sampling, at a high collection flow rate (i.e., greater than or equal to 40 liters per
minute), in routinely or frequently occupied areas of the mill. These samples shall be analyzed
B.
DRC4394
Page 16 of20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIYE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #WJ900479
Amendment 43
for gross alpha. In addition, with each change in mill feed material or at least annually, the
licensee shall analyze the mill feed or production product for U-nat, Th-230,Ra-226, and Pb-
21 0 and use the analysis results to assess the fundamental constituent composition of air sample
[Applicable NRC Amendment: 7j
1 I .5 Calibration of in-plant air and radiation monitoring equipment shall be performed as specified in
the license renewal application, under Section 3.0 of the "Radiation Protection Procedures
Manual," with the exception that in-plant air sampling equipment shall be calibrated at least
quarterly and air sampling equipment checks shall be documented.
11.6 The licensee shall perform an annual ArARA audit of the radiation safety program in
accordance with the NRC Regulatory Guide 8.31.
ll.7 Settlement Monitorine Standard Operating Procedure - the licensee shall submit for Executive
Secretary approval a written Settlement Monitorine Standard Operatine Procedure (SOP) on or
before December 1. 2010. The proposed SOP shall describe methods for monitorine vertical
settlement in the tailines management cell areas and for recording and documenting settlement
monitoring data and comparins such data to previous data to track potential settlement. All data
collected bv the Licensee for these purposes shall be included in an annual report to be
submitted to the Executive Secretarv. pursuant to License Condition 12.3. The SOP shall also:
Require that settlement monitors (e.g.. settlement stands) be promptly installed
followins placement of temporary cover over placed tailines:
Require installation of one or more representative settlement monitorins stand(s) above
each ISL source disposal area that has been closed to further disposal pursuant to
License Condition 10.5.A. There shall be at least one settlement monitorine stand for
each ISL source disposal area. estimated to be about 22.500 square feet. Installation of
said settlement monitorins stand and initial elevation survev shall be completed bv the
Licensee within 30 calendar days of completion of each ISL source disposal area. For
ISL sourse disposal areas or trenches completed before April 1. 2010 the Licensee shall
install the required settlement stand(s) and complete the initial elevation surveypriorto
June 1.2010:
Indicate that the licensee will utilize settlement monitorine devices and methods that are
resistant to shifting in their positions as a result of such forces as frost heave. erosion.
burrowins animals. or other environmental factors:
A.
B.
C.
o
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
DRC43g4
PagelT of20
License #W2
Amendment {3
D.Include provisions to prevent man-caused damaqe to settlement monitorinq devices.
includinq. but not limited to vehicle and construction traffic damage. Such measures
will include: 1) all equipment. procedures. and provisions needed to protect said
settlement monitoring devices, 2) schedules for rapid verbal and written reportine of an),
such damaqe" and 3) corrective actions taken or to be taken bv the Licensee to replace
and/or repair said devices:
Indicate that settlement monitors will be:
Initially surveyed b), a Utah Licensed Professional Land Survelror within. 30
calendar days of installation:(2) Surveyed monthly: and
(3) Surveyed annually by a Utah Licensed Land Survelror. Review of the data and
analvsis shall be performed and certified bly a Utah Licensed Professional
Eneineer submitted annually as part of the ATER required by License Condition
12.3..
Include procedures requirinq that such settlement monitors be placed. surve)red,
mapped. and maintained; that corrective action and maintenance activities be performed
to maintain existing monitorine devices in a reliable. good working condition. as
needed: that the addition. surveyinq and mappinq of new settlement monitoring devices
installed be documented: and that records be made of observations of site conditions as
thev relate to the conditions at and in the vicinitv of the installed monitorine devices:
Provide quantitative performance criteria and describe how such criteria will be used to
evaluate vertical movement:
Indicate that anlu settlement monitorinq device that is irreparably damaeed as a result of
environmental stresses or throug{r man-caused contact. including but not limited to cell
construction or other operational equipment. shall be promptllz replaced with an
identical or equivalent monitoring device: and provisions provided to zuide the
interpretation of data from both the former and the replacement device:
Indicate that where survey evidence sugsests that siqnificant apparent movement in a
settlement monitor has occurred. in excess of the approved performance criteria. that the
departure(s) will be investiqated and explained. and errors corrected and resolved in a
timelv manner. subject to Executive Secretary approval:
Indicate that photoeraphs shall be taken of the monitorinq areas at least annuallv to
document site and device conditions. Additionall)r. the SOP shall indicate that
(1)
G.
H.
DRC4304
Page 18 of20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #!{1900479
Amendment 43
photoqraphs shall be taken following any instances of unusually severe weather or
incidents involvinq equipment if thelz result in physical damaqe or disturbance to anv
settlement monitorinq device. or sipnificant chanqes to the ground surface areas adiacent
to or surroundinq a settlement or displacement monitorine device:
K. Include a list of records that will be prepared for documentine settlement data for each
settlement monitorinq device and related site observations and activitiesl and
L. Indicate that results and records of settlement monitorine shall be submitted annually as
part of the ATER required blz License Condition 12.3.
fApplicable UDRC Amendment: 4l
1 I .8 Movement (Displacement) Monitorine Standard Operatine Procedure - the licensee shall submit
for Executive Secretary approval a written Movement Monitoring Standard Operatinq
Procedure (SOP) on or before December i. 2010. The proposed SOP shall describe methods for
monitorinq potential vertical and horizontal movements in the constructed dike portions of the
tailinqs manaeement cells. and for recordinq and documentinq displacement monitorinq data
and comparinq such data to previous data to track potential movement (displacement). All data
collected by the Licensee for these purposes shall be included in an annual report to be
submitted to the Executive Secretary. pursuant to License Condition 12.3. The SOP shall also:
A. Require that movement monuments be promptlv installed following completion of
construction of cell dikes:
B. Indicate that the licensee will utilize movement monuments and monitorinq methods
that are resistant to shiftine in their positions as a result of such forces as frost heave.
erosion. burrowinq animals" or other environmental factors:
C. Include an obligation for the Licensee to prevent man-caused damaqe to movement
monuments. includine. but not limited to vehicle and construction traffic damaee. Such
measures will include: 1) all equipment" procedures. provisions need to protect said
settlement monitorine devices. 2) schedules for rapid verbal and written reportine of any
such damaee. and 3) corrective actions taken or to be taken by the Licensee to replace
and/or repair said devices:
D. Indicate that movement monuments will be:
(1) Initially surve)red b), a Utah Licensed Land Surve)ror within 30 calendar da)rs of
installation:(2) Surveyed semi-annually for the first three )uears followine installation by a Utah
Licensed Land Survelzor.
DRC43q4
Page 19 of20
UTAH DIYISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License#W
Amendment {3
(3) Surveyed annually after the first three years by a Utah Licensed Land Survelzor(4) Subjected to accelerated monitoring conducted under certain circumstances. at a
frequencv and in a manner approved by the Executive Secretary: and(5) Reviewed annually by a Utah Licensed Professional Ensineer. who shall
oerform and certifu an analysis of all survev data. This analysis shall be
submitted pursuant to License Condition 12.3:
E. Include procedures requirinq that such movement monuments be placed. surveved.
mapped. and maintained: that corrective action and maintenanse activities beperformed
to maintain existine movement monuments in a reliable. qood workinq condition. as
needed: that the addition. surveyine and mappins of new movement monuments
installed be documented: and that records be made of observations of site conditions as
they relate to the conditions at and in the vicinitls of the installed monuments:
Provide quantitative performance criteria and describe how such criteria will be used to
evaluate movements (displacements):
Indicate that any movement monument that is irreparabllz damaqed as a result of
environmental stresses or through man-caused contact. including but not limited to cell
construction or other operational equipment. shall be promptly replaced with an
identical or equivalent movement monument: and provisions provided to zuide the
interpretation of data from both the former and the replacement device:
H. Include a list of records that will be prepared for documentins movement (displacement)
data for each movement monument and related site observations and activities: and
I. Indicate that results and records of movements (displacements) shall be submitted
annuallv as part of the ATER required bv License Condition i2.3.
fApplicable UDRC Amendment: 4J
SECTION 12: REPORTINGREQUIREMENTS
l2.I DELETED byNRC Amendment 13.
[Applicable NRC Amendment: 13J
12.2 The licensee shall submit a detailed decommissioning plan to the Executive Secretary at least
twelve (12) months prior to planned final shutdown of mill operations that includes a detailed
Quality Assurance Plan. The plan will be in accordance with NRC Regulatory Guide 4.15,
"Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs" and NURE G-157 5,"Multi-Agency
Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM)" or equivalent most current
guidance.
F.
G.
DRC4394
Page 20 of20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET License#W
Amendment {3
fApplicable NRC Amendment: l jJ
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: IJ
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 2J
12.3 Annual Technical Evaluation Report (ATER): The licensee shall submit an ATER for
Executive Secretarv approval no later than September 1. of each year. Each ATER shall
insorporate all documents and attachments. includine applicable updates to previously
submitted documents with attachments that support information presented in the ATER.
including. but not limited to maps. drawinss. tables. and fizures. The licensee shall include. as
part of the ATER. results of tailines cell temporary cover settlement and dike displacement
monitorine activities. The content of the tailines cell tempora{v cover settlement and
displacement monitorine proqram related information shall include those records required under
the Settlement Monitorins and Movement Monitoring SOPs (License Conditions 11.7 and
1 1.8). as approved bv the Executive Secretary.
fApplicable UDRC Amendment: 4J
UTAH RADIATION CONTROL BOARI)
Executive Secretary Date
Cell48 Environmenrot n)t and License Amendment Request J
Evaluation Report
DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
DENISON MINES (USA) CORP
REVIEW OF LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST AND
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR CELL 48
SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT
UNDER UAC RI13.24 AND UAC R317-6
APRrL 6,2010
Cell48 Environmentat ntt and License Amendment Request
Safety Evaluation Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Paee
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .......,. .....,....... tV
UAC R313-24-3A: ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSN - RADIOLOGICAL AND NONRADIOLOGICALIMPACTS.. ....,................ I
UAC R3l3-24-38: ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS - IMPACT ON WATERWAYS AND
GROL]NDWATER ..,.,.,.6
UAC R313-24-3C: ENIVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS - ALTERNATfVES.......... ..............,... I I
UAC R313-24-3D: ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSN - LONG-TERM IMPACTS.......,.....,.,.................13
10CFR40.26(C)(2): GENERAL LICENSE... .................16
10CFR40.31(H): APPLICATION FOR SPECIFIC LICENSES............ ..............18
10CFR40.61:RECORDS ..........19
I0CFR40.65(AX1): EFFLUENT MONITORING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ...........2r
1OCFR4O INTRODUCTION: CAPACITY OF TAILINGS OR WASTE SYSTEMS OVER THE
LIFETIME OF MILL OPERATIONS.............. .,.,,....,..,,.,.,..22
10CFR40 APPENDD( A,INTRODUCTION: ALTERNATTVE REQUIREMENTS .............23
10CFR40 APPENDD( A, CRITERION 1: PERMANENT ISOLATION WITHOUT ONGOING
MAINTENANCE.,.........,.. ..............24
l0CFR40, APPENDX A, CRITEzuON 2: PROLIFERATION..............,......,:........ ...............27
10CFR40, APPENDX A, CRITERION 3: PLACEMENT BELOW GRADE...... .................29
10CFR40, APPENDX A, CRITEzuON 4: LOCATION AND DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ..................31
10CFR40, APPENDX A, CRITERION 5A(1): GROLIND-WATER PROTECTION STANDARDS.....36
10CFR40, APPENDX A, CRITERION 5A(1): GROLTND-WATER PROTECTION STANDARDS.....36
10CFR40, APPENDX A, CRITERION 5A(2): LINER ...................37
10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 5A(4): PREVENT OVERTOPPING.......,... ...........39
10CFR40, APPENDX A, CRITERION 5A(5): DIKES .......,...........41
1OCFR4O, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 6(2): VERIFY EFFECTTVENESS OF FINAL RADON
BARRTER ....................44
10CFR40, APPENDX A, CRITERION 6(3): PHASED EMPLACEMENT OF FINAL RADON
BARRIER ....................46
I0CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 6(4): REPORT RADON BARRIER EFFECTIVENESS ..........49
10CFR40, APPENDX A, CRITERION 6(5): ELEVATED RADIUM CONCENTRATIONS IN COVER
MATERIALS................. ..............,..51
10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITEzuON 6(6): CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES OTHER
THAN RADTUM IN SOIL ..,....,.....53
I0CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 6(7): NONRADIOLOGICAL HAZARDS ............,55
10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 6A(1): COMPLETION OF FINAL RADON BARUER..........56
10CFR40, APPENDX A, CRITERION 7: PREOPERATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL
MONITORING PROGRAMS ................. ..........57
10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 8: EFFLUENT CONTROL DURING OPERATIONS .....,.......59
10CFR40, APPENDX A, CRITERION 8A: DAILY INSPECTIONS.............. .....................61
l0CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 9: FINANCIAL SURETY ARRANGEMENTS..............;.........62
10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 10: COSTS OF LONG-TERM SURVEILLANCE...................65
UAC R317-6-6.3: GROTIND WATER DISCHARGE PERMIT APPLICATION.,......... ...'..66
UAC R317-6-6.4: ISSUANCE OF DISCHARGE PERMIT................ ...........,....72
UAC R317-6-6.9: PERMIT COMPLIANCE MONITORING....,. .......................74
UAC R317-6-6.10: BACKGROUND WATER QUALITY DETERMINATION ..................76
UAC R3l7-6-6.12: SUBMISSION OF DATA '...'.'........78
UAC R3l7-6-6.13: REPORTING OF MECHANICAL PROBLEMS OR DISCHARGE SYSTEMFAILURES ,,,,..,,,....,,..,,79
UAC R317-6-6.14: CORRECTION OF ADVERSE EFFECTS .....,...80
UAC R317-6-6.16: OUT-OF-COMPLIANCE STATUS ..................81
UAC R3l7-6-6.17: PROCEDURE WHEN A FACILITY IS OUT-OF-COMPLIANCE .......83
ul
CL, CH and CL-ML Soil classes under Unified Soil Classification System
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ALARA
ASTM
BAT
BLM
Cell48 ER
CFR
cm
DCGL
DG
Division
DOE
DQO
DUSA
D&M
EA
EPA
ER
FES
FWPCA
(,E
gpd, gaVday
gpm
GW and GP
HGCI
ruC
As Low As Reasonably Achievable
American Society for Testing and Materials
Best Available Technology
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
Environmental Report submitted in support of the Cell48 License
Amendment Request.
Code of Federal Regulations
centimeter
Derived concentration guideline
Draft Regulatory Guide (NRC)
Utah Radiation Control Division
U.S. Department of Energy
Data quality objective
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
Dames & Moore, Inc.
Environmental Assessment
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Report
Final Environmental Statement
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
gram
gallons per day
gallons per minute
Soil classes under Unified Soil Classification Systan
Hydro Geo Chem, [nc.
International Uranium Corporation
lv
kg
km
lb
m
mgl
mi
millirem
mm
m2s
NRC
NUREG
pci
RCRA
rem
RG
s
SC, SP, and SW
TDS
TEDE
UAC
UDRC
UMETCO
URS
USGS
yd,ydz
5h:1v
kilogram
kilometer; 1000 meters
pound (16 ounces)
meter
milligram per liter
mile
one thousandth of one Roentgen Equivalent Man
millimeter, 0.001 meter
square meter second; used as a measure of radon flux, e.g., pCi/m2s
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Series of reports prepared and issued by staff of USNRC
picocurie; l0-12 curie
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Roentgen Equivalent Man
Regulatory Guide (NRC)
second
Soil classes under Unified Soil Classification System
total dissolved solids
Total Effective Dose Equivalent
Utah Administrative Code
Utah Division of Radiation Control
UMETCO Minerals Corporation
URS Corporation, including Washington Division
US Geological Survey
yard, square yards
five horizontal units (5h) to one vertical unit (1v); represents slope or
steepness
Celt 48 Environmertd Rtt and License Amendment Request
Safety Evaluation Report
UAC R313-24-3Az ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS - RADIOLOGICAL AND
NONRADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-3:
(1) Each new license application, renewal, or major amendment shall contain an environmental
report describing the proposed action, a statement of its purposes, and the environment affected.
The environmental report shall present a discussion of thefollowing:
(a) An assessment of the radiological and nonradiological impacts to the public healthfrom
the activities to be conducted pursuant to the license or amendment;
SAFETY EVALUATION:
The Licensee submitted an Environmental Report on April 30, 2008 (DUSA 2008a). Additional
and related environmental information is found in other Licensee documents provided. The
Licensee provided updated meteorological data, including observations through calendar year
2006, in Section 1.1 of Rev.4.0 of the Reclamation Plan, recently submitted by letter dated
November 24, 2009 (DUSA 2009b). Currently the November 24,2009 Reclamation Plan is
under separate review by the Division. The Licensee has summarized that data in its responses
to Division interrogatories.
Section 3.10 of the Environmental Report in Support of the License Renewal Application, State
of Utah Radioactive Materials License No. UTl900479 (DUSA 2007a) shows that land use has
changed little in the area of the mill since the FES, with the exception that the nearest residence
is now approximately 1.6 miles from the mill, whereas the nearest residence at the time of the
FES was approximately 4.8 miles from the mill. However, dose calculations found in the Mill's
2008 MILDOS Evaluation modeled the nearest potential residence, which is at the noithern
boundary of the mill property, approximately 1.2 miles from the mill, and found acceptable dose
rates to the public at this location under current Division regulations.
Populations within a 5O-mile radius of the mill have been updated since the FES and are included
in Section 4.0 and Section 3.9 of DUSA 2008a. These updated demographics are also
incorporated into the 2008 MILDOS Evaluation (Senes 2008). No significant trends are expected
in population or industrial use pattems in the foreseeable future.
No significant changes have occurred nor are expected in:
o Average values of meteorological parameters.
o Locations, natures, and amounts of present and projected surface and ground-water use
within five miles downgradient of the site.
o Present and projected population associated with each use point during the active life of
the mill.
Cetl48 Environrnentot nlt and License Amendment Request t
Safety Evaluation Report
o Locations, distances from the mill, withdrawal rates, return rates, type of water use,
depth of wells, groundwater elevation, drawdown rates or water use estimates
downgradient of the proposed Cell 48.
o Locations and populations of neighboring schools, facilities; hospitals; and residential
areas within 5 miles from the Mill.
The 2008 MILDOS Evaluation (Senes 2008) takes into account recent demographic information
within a 50-mile radius of the mill, and calculates the dose to the nearest potential residence,
which is at the northem boundary of the mill. Therefore the potential radiological impacts from
the addition of Cell 48 on populations and neighboring residences has been taken into account in
that modeling.
For the purposes of evaluating radiological doses from the addition of Cell 48, as set out in
Senes 2008, the dose at the nearest potential residence, located approximately 1.2 miles north of
the mill and some 0.40 miles closer to the site than the current actual nearest residence, has been
calculated as the dose to the person likely to receive the highest dose from mill operations. .
Cattle grazingon lands abutting the mill's restricted area is similar to grazingthat occurred at the
time of the 1979 ER, and is taken into account in the 2008 MILDOS Evaluation (Senes 2008).
There are no significant transient or seasonal population variations applicable to the area of the
mill.
MILDOS-AREA calculates the impacts based on annual average air concentrations of
radionuclides considered. The human pathways considered in MILDOS-AREA for individual
and population impacts are: inhalation, external exposure from ground concentrations, external
exposure from cloud immersion, ingestion of vegetables, ingestion of meat and ingestion of milk.
With respect to the ingestion of vegetables, the 2008 MILDOS Evaluation incorporated the
default provisions of the MILDOS-AREA code, which assume that nearby receptors consume
specified percentages of their total vegetable consumption from vegetables grown at their
respective receptor locations (Senes 2008).
With respect to ingestion of meat and milk, the area immediately north of the mill is used only
for grazing of beef cattle. A second location to the east and south of the mill is also used for the
grazing of beef cattle. Although considered unlikely, the 2008 MILDOS Evaluation
contemplated that in one worst case scenario, it is possible that the beef cattle gtazed at these
locations would be eaten by the residents near the mill. A scenario which supports dairy cattle
grazing at these locations was not included in the modelingbecause the prospect of supporting
dairy cattle grazing near the mill is not credible, given the arid climate and the much larger feed
requirements of dairy cattle as opposed to beef cattle. Further, no dairy cattle have been observed
near the Mill. The 2008 MILDOS evaluation assumed, as a worst case scenario, that the
inhabitants at the nearest potential residence consumed all of their beef from the cattle grazing at
the locations noar to the Mill described above, which, based on historic grazing practices, were
assumed to graze at those locations for two months each year. The 2008 MILDOS Evaluation
also conservatively assumed that such residents drank all of their milk from cows that graz,ed at
the location of the nearest potential residence (Senes 2008).
Cell 48 Environmentd Ru;t and License Amendment Request
Safety Evaluation Report
In this worst case scenario, the total dose to the person most likely to receive the highest
exposure (i.e., residents at the nearest potential residence) was calculated to be well below the
regulatory limit, as shown in Section 5.0 of the 2008 MILDOS Evaluation.
The updated meteorological data, thru 2006 has been used in the "2008 MILDOS simulations"
(Senes 2008). No significant changes to MILDOS results were caused by incorporating this
revised data into the MILDOS simulations. The Licensee provided the MILDOS input and
output files from which the results presented in the 2008 MILDOS Evaluation were summarized.
The Division has reviewed these files and concluded that they appropriately represent the White
Mesa facility in its proposed operating and closed conditions.
The Licensee submitted a sensitivity analysis to demonstrate that reasonable variations in
MILDOS input parameters (related to Cell 48 performance) do not change the conclusion of the
2008 MILDOS Evaluation (Senes 2008). The Division has reviewed this sensitivity study and
concluded that it provides confidence that the projected dose rates during operations and
following closure will satisff applicable regulatory dose limits.
The construction and operation of Cell 48 will not add any new constituents of concern over and
above existing licensed facilities at the Mill. The physical, chemical and radiological make up of
the tailings to be disposed of in Cell 48 is expected to be appreciably similar to that of existing
tailings and the assumptions upon which the 2008 MILDOS Evaluation is based.
Thehazards and risks to human health and the environment created by all potential constituents
of concern at the Mill site were originally assessed in detail by Dames and Moore in Section 5.0
of the 1978 Environmental Report (ER; D&M 1978) and by NRC in Section 4.0 of the Final
Environmental Statement (FES; NRC 1 979).
The 2008 MILDOS Evaluation provides an estimate of the maximum total effective dose
equivalent ("TEDE") for a number of receptors, including the nearest potential residence using
updated meteorology. The nearest potential residence is at the northern boundary of the Mill
property, close to air particulate monitoring station BHV-1, which is the closest private property
that could be occupied full time by a member of the public. That location, BHV-1, is also in one
of the predominant wind directions. All other site boundaries abut property managed by United
States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which could not be inhabited full time by a resident.
Therefore, the person likely to receive the highest dose from the licensed operation, as
contemplated by Utah Administrative Code (UAC) R313-15-301 and -302, would be a person at
the nearest potential residence. BHV-I, the location of the nearest potential residence, is
approximately 1.2 miles north of the mill site itself. The current nearest actual residence is
approximately 1.6 miles north of the mill site. Therefore, the analyses and results of the 2008
MILDOS Evaluation conservatively overstate likely doses.
For processing of Colorado Plateau Ore, the maximum TEDE was calculated (Senes 2008) to be
1.4 mrem/yr for an infant at the nearest potential residence, BHV-I, while for processing higher
grade Aizona Strip ores, it was calculated to be 3.1 mrem/yr for the same individual. This
maximum projected dose to the nearest potential resident is about 3.1% of the 100 mrem/yr limit.
The Licensee asserts and the Division agrees that no changes to doses that result from transport
via groundwater or surface water transport are likely to result from the updated meteorology
Cell48 Environmentot n)t and License Amendment Reques, O
Sofety Evaluation Report
database. This conclusion is based on the relatively small changes that were reflected in
meteorological parameters that affect the projected doses, namely, parameters such as wind
speed, wind direction, wind stability, precipitation rates, evaporation rates, and temperatures.
The concentrations of air particulate radionuclides and gamma concentrations at various receptor
locations, including at the nearest potential residence (BHV-I) are reported in the Mill's Semi-
Annual Effluent Reports that are submitted to the Executive Secretary. Doses (TEDEs) at the
locations where humans or environmental populations could be reasonably exposed are
estimated in the 2008 MILDOS Evaluation (Senes 2008).
The mill's training program is described in Section 6.3 of the 2007 License Renewal Application
(DUSA 2007b). The training program was subsequently revised, as described in a letter dated
May 15, 2009 from the Licensee to the Executive Secretary. The mill's training program applies
to the mill generally and to the mill's tailings cells as a whole, and is currently being considered
by the Executive Secretary as part of the 2007 License Renewal Application review process. The
United States Mines Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) also reviews and approves the
mill's training program.
Addendum 5 of the mill's current training program addresses general emergency procedures.
Those procedures take into account the general shutdown of operational activities during an
emergency evacuation event. During new hire training, the Emergency Response Plan is
presented and specific items are covered including procedures and actions to take during the
different emergency scenarios. The instructor covers the roles and responsibilities of each
person, the organizational chart and who should be informed and when, and finally where the
employees can periodically review the Plan to keep themselves familiar.
During annual refresher training for all employees, this information is again reviewed during the
Escape and Emergency Evacuation Plans section. This usually takes place in August of each
year. During this training, the instructor will address the existing Plan and then review the main
ideas for the various scenarios. This information is presented orally with general feedback used
as the evaluation method of knowledge.
All employees who receive training at the facility are documented using the MSHA 5000-23
form. These documents show the training received, i.e. Annual Refresher, Newly Employed
Inexperienced Miner, or Experienced Miner. The amount of training each employee receives will
vary depending on his or her classification upon hire. These documents are held in the
employee's Safety folders which are maintained in the Mill's Radiation Safety Officer's office.
The Licensee is responding to Division directives to address and resolve groundwater
contamination issues that predated operation of the milling facility or construction of the mill's
tailings system (UDRC 1999). The groundwater chloroform contamination plume has been
attributed to the operation of a temporary laboratory facility that was located at the site prior to
and during construction and initial operation of the mill facility, and from septic drain fields that
were used for laboratory and sanitary waste disposal during initial operation of the mill. DUSA
efforts are underway to comply with all applicable regulatory requirements and License
conditions. The evaluation of compliance of the recently discovered nitrate plume is still under
investigation.
Cell48 Environmentd R";t and License Amendment Request
S afe ty Ev a luat i on Rep o r t I'RS
During mill operations, the doses to the member of the public most likely to be exposed are
expected to continue to be approximately the same as they have been to date. Upon site closure,
all mill buildings and contaminated areas, including wind-blown contamination, will be removed
and placed into one of the tailings cells. The clean up standard for all non-tailings areas and
surrounding areas is set out in Criterion 6(6) of 10 CFR 40, Appendix A (incorporated by
reference into UAC R3l3-24-4).
After all non-tailings areas are cleaned up and contaminated materials are placed into one of the
tailings cells, the tailings cells will be capped in place. The tailings cell cap must be designed- and
constructed to ensure that radon emanations do not exceed the regulatory limit of 20 pCi/m2 per
second, for 1,000 years to the extent reasonable practicable, and in any event for 200 years, as
required by 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6. Additional requirements are found in Section
3.3.2 of the November 24,2009 Reclamation Plan submittal (DUSA 2009b), which is currently
under Division review. In the interim, the Division will approve Cell 48 for use in operations
only after the Licensee provides revised cover system design documents and assurance that all
applicable regulatory requirements and license conditions will be satisfied (see License
Condition 9.11).
Upon License termination, the tailings cells will be transferred to the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) for perpetual care and maintenance.
The doses to members of the public following facility closure and stabilization will be minimal
and within regulatory standards over a 1,000 year time frame (Senes 2008). Upon transfer, DOE
will be responsible to ensure that the tailings cells maintain their integrity and that these
standards will continue to be met in perpetuity.
The accidents already considered in previous submittals to NRC or the Division adequately
represent the accidents that might result during construction and operation of the proposed Cell
48. The NRC's and Division's previous acceptance of such analyses for cell construction is the
basis for accepting them as adequately representing accidents associated with Cell 48.
FINDING:
The information submitted by the Licensee in the Cell 48 ER and related documents satisfies the
requirements of UAC R3 1 3-2a-3(1 )(a).
Cell48 Environmentot n)t and License Amendment Request a
S afe ty Ev a luati on Rep o rt
UAC R3l3-24-3Bz ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS - IMPACT ON WATERWAYS AND
GROT]NDWATER
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R3l3-24-3:
0) Each new license application, renewal, or major amendment shall contain an environmental
report describing the pioposed action, a statement of its purposes, and the environment affected.
The environmental report shall present a discussion of thefollowing:
...(b) An assessment of any impact on waterways and groundwater resulting from the
activities conducted pursuant to the license or amendment;
SAFETY EVALUATION:
The Licensee provided information on aquifer horizontal and vertical permeabilities and other
physical / hydraulic properties, as well as well drawdown characteristics in Sections 6.3,7.2, and
7.3 of the ER (DUSA 2008a). In addition, in response to the Round 1 Interrogatory, the
Licensee discussed updated information obtained by the Licensee between January 8, 2008 and
August 27,2009 and that additional information in Section 2.5 of the September 1, 2009 Permit
Renewal Application (DUSA 2009e).
The Licensee provided updated information on current uses of surface water in the area
surrounding the mill in Section 1.4.1 of the November 24,2009 Reclamation Plan submittal
(DUSA 2009b), which is currently under Division review.
The State of Utah Division of Water Rights listed 261 ground water appropriations within a 5-
mile radius of the mill. A summary of this list was included in DUSA 2009c. The legend to
Table 2.2.2-l was inadvertently omitted for that submittal. The legend clarifies the status of each
of the water rights as Approved, Perfected, Terminated, or Unapproved. The legend is included
as Attachment C to DUSA 2010a. Neither the list, nor the Division of Water Rights web site,
lists pending water rights.
A search of the State of Utah, Division of Water Rights yielded information on six shallow wells
located within one mile of the site. Two of the wells are located on the property owned by the
Licensee, and have been previously described. These are the Hawkins and Jones wells. The
records did contain a drill log for the Hawkins well, a copy of which is included as Attachment B
to the Licensee's response to Round 2Interrogatories (DUSA 2010a). The file also included
correspondence on appropriation of the water rights. The Hawkins well was abandoned as a part
of the construction of tailings Cell 2. No driller's log was available for the Jones well, although
the file did include correspondence on appropriation of the water rights, a listing of which is
included in Attachment B of DUSA 2010a. Both of these wells are downgradient or cross-
gradient to the mill and tailings area.
Cell48 Environmenrot nt, and License Amendment Request
S afe ty Ev a lua ti o n Rep o rt
Information was obtained on four other wells located up gradient and cross gradient (to the east)
of the mill property. Records for the Holt well contained no drill logs, but did have an extensive
correspondence file. Two wells drilled by Dale Lyman had drill logs, but no application number
or coffespondences file. The "USA Utah Launch Complex White Sands Missile Range" drilled a
well east of the mill site. The records contained an extensive correspondence file but no drill log.
Copies of the Lyman drill logs and the correspondence list for the other wells were submitted in
Attachment B to DUSA 2010a.
The Licensee provided a discussion of groundwater usage in Section 1.5.6 of the November 24,
2009 Reclamation Plan submittal (DUSA 2009b), currently under Division review). The
information provided indicates that: (1) the well yields from wells completed in the Burro
Canyon formation within the White Mesa site are generally lower than those obtained from wells
in this formation upgradient of the site; and (2) documented pumping rates from on-site wells
completed in the Burro Canyon formation are generally less than 0.7 cubic feet per second (cfs).
The information provided shows that some on-site wells are located in a perched aquifer with
limited permeability and saturated thickness. In addition, the saturated thickness of the perched
aquifer appears to generally decrease in a southward direction. [t is unknown if this thinning of
saturation is caused by artificial recharge at the eastem part of the site caused by the Licensee's
wildlife ponds, or to an overall limited vertieal recharge at the land surface. Recent groundwater
geochemical and isotopic studies by Hurst and Solomon (Hurst 2008) indicate the perched
aquifer at the site is recharge limited. The groundwater mound caused by the Licensee's wildlife
ponds in the eastern margin part of the site also demonstrates that a hydraulic connection exists
between the land surface and the perched aquifer. To provide an improved understanding of the
physical extent of the perched aquifer, its hydraulic connection to nearby surface water seeps and
springs, and better estimate groundwater flow directions and travel times to downgradient
discharge points, a new requirement has been added to the Groundwater Discharge Permit (Part
I.H.10) as further described below.
The information provided by the Licensee indicates that similar observations have been noted in
studies performed for the DOE's disposal site at Slick Rock, Colorado site, where the Dakota
Sandstone, Burro Canyon Formation, and upper claystone of the Brushy Basin Member were not
considered aquifers due to their low permeabilities, discontinuous natures, and limited
thicknesses. The Executive Secretary agrees with this finding as it pertains to the Brushy Basin
Member in that it provides a basal hydrogeologic no-flow boundary for the perched aquifer.
However, while the two other overlying formations may have a low yield, this condition does not
negate the need to protect groundwater quality there, in that no limitation for yield is provided in
the definition of an aquifer under the Utah Ground Water Quality Protection Regulations (UAC
R317-6-1.1). Further, it is also important to consider the arid nature of the mill site area, and the
potential that nearby surface water sources may be hydraulically connected to the perched
aquifer. Potential uses of said surface water sources, including wildlife and recreation, need to
be considered. This information will also be helpful as the Licensee and Executive Secretary
further determine long-term solutions for both the chloroform and nitrate groundwater
contaminant plumes known to exist at the mill site property.
The Licensee's information also indicates that insufficient data are available to define the
groundwater flow direction in the deep confined aquifer found in the Entrada / Navajo sandstone
in the vicinity of the mill. However, because the Morrison and Summerville Formations form
Cetl48 Environmentot n)t and License Amendment Reques, a
greater than a 1,000-foot-thick, low-permeability barrier to vertical ground water flow separating
the Entrada / Navajo Aquifer from the Burro Canyon perched zone,-it is considered unlikely tha'[
constituents potentially released from the tailings disposal cells would ever impact water quality
of this deep aquifer.
The Licensee provided updated information on surface water and groundwater quality and
chemical characteristics for potentially impacted surface waters and groundwater out to at least al-mile radius from the site. The information was provided in Sections 1.5.2 though 1.5.5 of the
November 24, 2009 Reclamation Plan submittal (DUSA 2009b), which is cunently underDivision review.
The Licensee has stated that "no significant changes are expected to occur in the surface water orgroundwater use within a 5-mile radius of the mill site." Surface water flows in the vicinity ofthe mill site are intermittent, fed only by storm water runoff and seasonal snow melt. Several
springs, located in the canyon walls east and west of the mill site provide very small, seasonal
contributions to surface water flows. The Licensee indicates that only Ruin Spring, located over
two miles southwest of the mill site provides enough water to support wildlife andiattle grazing.
The Division does not concur with the Licensee's conclusion, in that other seeps west ofihe millsite also convey small, seasonal amounts of surface water flow. The Division's requirement
(added to the Permit as Part I.H.10) that the Licensee conduct an additional hydrogeoiogic andfield investigation of the seeps west of the mill site and of Ruin Spring to fufthe, u..ify th.
relationship of groundwater flow in the perched water zone and these seeps and the spring, is
intended to help resolve this issue. Prior to mill construction, several small surface *it",
holding ponds were constructed in the vicinity of the Mill site to trap surface water flows to
support cattle grazing. Since the construction of Recapture Reservoir in the 1980's, cattle grazing
is now supported by stock watering tanks fed from water piped from Recapture Reservoir, und
the land use has shifted from dry land farming and grazingto irrigated crops.
The Licensee provided information on groundwater resources in the vicinity of the mill site(from the shallow perched aquifer zone) in Sections 7.1 through 7.3 of DUSA 2008a, and the
deeper confined Entrada / Navajo Aquifer is described in section 7.4 of DUSA 2008a. Within a
S-mile radius of the Mill site, groundwater appropriations from the shallow perched zone are
mostly to the north of the mill site. Additional information on the shallow perched zone is
included in the November 24,2009 Reclamation Plan submittal (DUSA 2009b); currently underDivision review. The Licensee controls the land approximately 1.6 miles to the north of the mill.
Therefore, no additional shallow wells can be drilled beyond that area. The location of the
existing wells is upgradient of the mill site so they would not be impacted by mill operations.
State and Federal agencies own the land to the west of the Mill. Therefore it is "highly unlikely
that a residential development or single family homes would be constructed on land adjacent to
the Mill property. Even if that were to occur, it is highly likely that domestic water would be
supplied by the City of Blanding distribution system, which now extends past the municipal
airport on the southern edge of the city."
The Licensee provided information in DUSA 2010a to indicate that the community of White
Mesa is the only known use of groundwater within a 5-mile radius to the south of the Mill site.
The community of White Mesa draws domestic water from two deep wells drilled into the
Entrada / Navajo Aquifer. The deep wells are located about 2 miles southeast of the Licensee's
Cell48 Environme*A nD, and License Amendment Request
Safety Evaluation Report
southern property boundary, and just under five miles southeast of tailings Cell 4A, and supply
all the needed water for domestic use. It is possible that a third well can be drilled if the White
Mesa community population were to grow and require water in addition to what can be produced
by the two deep wells. The White Mesa community wells are deep wells that have a thick
interval of intervening low-permeability (Brush Basin Member and other formations) materials
separating the perched water zone from the deep underlying aquifers. Another possible scenario,
although not financially attractive, would be that the community could pay to extend the pipeline
supplying domestic water from the City of Blanding distribution system.
The Licensee also has five deep wells drilled into the Entrada / Navajo Aquifer, located north,
east and south of the mill facilities. Under the requirements of the Part I.H.3 of the existing
Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit (hereafter Permit, UDRC 2010b), the Licensee is to
evaluate and determine the physical integrity of the casing and annular casing seal in water
supply well WW-2. In the event that hydraulic isolation of the perched aquifer and Entrada /
Navajo Aquifer is uncertain or unsubstantiated for any reason, the Licensee is required to repair
the well casing and annular seal to provide well construction that complies with applicable
regulations or to abandon the well. This effort is being made as a means to protect groundwater
quality conditions in the deep confined aquifer.
In DUSA 2}l0a, the Licensee provided additional information pertaining to the issue of
projected future changes in surface water or groundwater use within five miles of the White
Mesa mill site. The 5-mile radius is an acceptable distance for providing such information. The
flow of surface water in the vicinity of the mill site is intermittent and fed by storm water runoff
and seasonal snow melt. The majority of the shallow perched zone groundwater appropriations,
within a S-mile radius of the mill site, are to the north of the mill site. The Licensee currently
controls the land approximately 1.2 miles to the north of the mill, so no additional shallow wells
supplying culinary water for residential use can be drilled within that area.
FINDING:
The Division will require the Licensee to submit an updated, final Reclamation Plan, and revised
Specifications for Reclamation, and any appropriate supporting analyses and calculations, as part
of an ongoing License Renewal process. The Division will review the updated Reclamation Plan
to ensure that it presents an assessment of any impact on waterways and groundwater resulting
from proposed activities at the White Mesa Mill Facility, including final reclamation activities at the
site. In addition, a new requirement (Part I.H.10) has been added to the forthcoming Permit
modification to require the Licensee to conduct an additional hydrogeologic and field
investigation in the area to the west of the Cell 4B footprint area, extending to, and including
existing seeps (e.g. Cottonwood Seep and Westwater Seep) and Ruin Spring located west and
southwest of the tailings management cells, and submission by the Licensee for approval by the
Division of a report describing results of that hydrogeologic investigation prior to placing Cell
48 into service. The investigation will be conducted to further delineate the relationship of the
(geologic) contact between the Brushy Basin and the Burro Canyon formations, and flow in the
perched water zone downgradient of the mill site, to these seeps and Ruin Spring. The geologic
contact surface could exert control on local groundwater flow directions in the perched zone, and
location of potential points of exposure of the public to possible groundwater contamination.
Cell48 Environmentot n)t and Li,cense Amendment Request O
Part LH,l0 of the Permit will also require that the Licensee determine the estimated travel time
to the nearest perched water zone discharge location that potentially could receive contamination
from the tailings managemont cells area, including Cell 48.
The required changes to the Permit and the information contained in the Cell 48 Environmental
Report and other relevant documents the Applicant has submitted, indicate that the requirementsof UAC R317-6-6.3 will yet be satisfied by complying with the Permit conditions prior toplacing Cell48 into service.
Evaluation Report
t0
Cell48 Environmenrrt nni, and License Amendment Request
Safnty Evaluation Repo rt
UAC Ri13-24-3Cz ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS - ALTERNATMS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-3:
(1) Each new license application, renewal, or maior amendment shall contain an
environmental report describing the proposed action, a statement of its purposes, and
the environment fficted. The environmental report shall present a discussion of the
following: ... (c) Consideration of alternatives, including alternative sites and
engineering methods, to the activities to be conducted pursuant to the license or
amendment,'and
SAFETY EVALUATION:
It is appropriate not to address alternatives to the site or milling process, since the mill is already
licensed, constructed, and operating, and has been for more than 25 years. It is also appropriate
not to address engineering alternatives to the design of the proposed Cell 48, since the Licensee
incorporates the same general design features for Cell 48 that the Division has already reviewed
and approved for Cell4A (URS 2009).
Cost estimates for decommissioning and stabilizatron of Cell 48 will be provided once the
Licensee submits an As-Built Report for Cell 48 (see Permit, Part I.H.9), and a revised
Reclamation Plan (see License Condition 9.11). The Division has reviewed the final engineering
design and specifications for Cell 48 and intends to approve such through issuance of a modified
Groundwater Quality Discharge Permit (see Permit, Part I.D.l2). To ensure that the State's
interests are adequately protected, conditions will be included in the forthcoming License
amendment to require submission and approval of cost estimates and financial assurances related
to Cell 4B prior to placing Cell48 into service (see License Condition 9.5).
Discussion of cost estimates for closure and decommissioning of facility components other than
Cell 48 is beyond the scope of this review.
The Licensee is responding to Division directives to address and resolve the chloroform
groundwater contamination issues that predated, or are related to initial operation of the milling
facility. It is the intent of the Division to require the Licensee to include an allowance for costs
for the chloroform groundwater remediation during the review process for the 2010 annual
surety report. Further, this new cost allowance will also be re-evaluated annually hereafter.
FINDING:
With the exception of information that the Licensee must yet submit and that the Division will
review and to ensure that it satisfies applicable requirements, the information submitted by the
Licensee in the Cell 48 ER and related documents appears to satisfy the requirements of UAC
m13-2a-3(1)(c).
1l
Cell48 Environmentat n)t and License Amendment Requesl O
Salbty Evaluation Report
Information yet to be submitted, reviewed, and approved include, but are not limited to: a Cell48 As-built Report, results of infiltration and transport modeling to justiff a final cover design(see Permit, Part LH.z), revised final cover system design information, ffid a revisidReclamation Plan and Specifications for Reclamation (see License Condition 9.11). To ensure
that the State's interests are adequately protected, new conditions are included in the forthcoming
License and Permit to require submission and approval of such information related to Cell 4iprior to placing Cell 48 into service.
t2
Cell48 Environmentat nepQt and License Amendment Request O
safety Eyatuation Report nse Amendment Req URIS
UAC R3 13 .24.3D1 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS . LONG'TERM IMPACTS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-3:
(1) Each new license application, renewal, or major amendment shall contain an environmental
report describing the proposed action, a statement of its purposes, and the environment affected.
The environmental report shall present a discussion of thefollowing:
... (d) Consideration of the long-term impacts including
decontamination, and reclamation impacts, associated with
conducted pursuant to the license or amendment.
SAFETY EVALUATION:
decommissioning,
Currently, the Mill has a reclamation plan for tailings Cells 1 ,2, and 3 (IUC 2000) that was
uppror.d by NRC on July 21, 2000 and judged to meet all applicable regulatory criteria,
inctuaing those identified above. In a letter to the Executive Secretary, the Licensee submitted
revised figr.". to the Reclamation Plan relating to Cell 4A (DUSA 2008b). The Executive
Secretary approved these amendments prior to Cell 4,A. being authorized for re-use (UDRC
2008c).
The Licensee has provided engineering design and specifications for the liner and leak detection
systems proposed beneath Cell 48 (see Geosyntec 2007, Geosyntec 2009, DUSA 2009d and
nUSe ZOO!fl. Review of these plans and reports has been conducted by the URS Corporation
(URS) on behalf of the Executive Secretary; and findings thereof found in a November 5, 2009
URS memorandum (URS 2009). Based on this review, the Executive Secretary has determined:
The Ce|l 48 liners and leak detection system design is adequate to control and contain
tailings wastes and wastewaters in the near-term,
The leak detection system proposed for Cell 48 will provide rapid reporting of any
leakage to allow detection thereof before release to underlying groundwater resources,
Existing and soon to be installed groundwater monitoring wells near Cell 4B will detect
any leakage releases before contamination has an opportunity to leave DUSA property,
and
The long-term containment of tailings and wastewaters at Cell 48 can be addressed under
a future- Reclamation Plan, yet to be submitted by the Licensee, and approved by the
Executive Secretary (before Cell 48 is put into service), pursuant to new License
Condition 9.11. As a part of the Cell 48 application process, and in response to a
Division interrogatory, the Licensee provided a November 24, 2009 Reclamation Plan
submittal (DUSA 2009b) , in part as an update to Revision 3.0 of the Reclamation Plan
(IUC 2000), and to reflect current conditions at the site. This was necessary since the
Revision 3.0 largely reflects site conditions when it was last approved by NRC in 2000.
to be
1)
2)
3)
4)
l3
Cell48 Environmental R)t and License Amendment Reques, a
S afe ty Ev aluati o n Rep o rt
However, the November 24, 2009 Reclamation Plan did not include cover design
information for Cell 48. Instead it provided, among other things, information on closure
of Cells l, 2, 3, and 4A. As a result, while the November 24,2009 Reclamation plan is
an improvement over the existing reclamation plan previously approved by the Division
for Cell 4Ain August,2008 (UDRC 2008c), additional information, specific to Cell 48,
is required by the Division to incorporate cover design requirements for Cell 48 that are
similar to those already approved for Cell 4A (i.e., Revision 3.1 of the Reclamation plan).
The Licensee indicated (DUSA 2070a, p. l1) that "The principal revisions and updates to the
Plan that are incorporated into Rev 4,0 (the November 24,2009 Reclamation Plan submittal)
include:
The addition of approved provisions relating to the Cell 1 Tailings Disposal Area;
The addition of approved provisions relating to Cell 44. as an operating tailings cell,
including the updates to the Plan conveyed by the Licensee's letter of July 25,2008;
Updates to plans and figures, as applicable, to reflect current conditions;
Administrative changes to reflect transfer of primary regulatory authority over theMill site from NRC to the Division and the change in the name of the Licensee from
Intemational Uranium (USA) Corporation;
' Administrative changes in the nature of "clean-up" for internal consistency of the
document;
' Updates to various information, including the following:
o Updated climate data;
Updated archaeological status for the site;
updated sections relating to surface water, groundwater, site hydrogeology, seeps
and springs etc. to reflect new information about the site since 2000;
Other various updates to environmental information; and
Updated disclosure relating to current monitoring programs, particularly
describing new groundwater and DMT monitoring requirements at the site since
2000."
In addition to the Cell 48 Reclamation Plan required under License Condition 9.1 1, the Division
is in the process of reviewingthe 2007 License Renewal Application (DUSA 2007aand 2007b),
which includes the November 24,2009 Reclamation Plan (DUSA 2009b). In this process, the
Executive Secretary will confirm that all of the foregoing requirements have been adequately
addressed. This review may result iir additional future changes to the Cell 48 Reclamation plan
required by License Condition 9.1 l,
The Licensee is also preparing an infiltration and contaminant transport model of the final
tailings cover system (the "Infiltration Study") to demonstrate the long-term ability of the cover
to protect nearby groundwater quality (see Permit, Part LH.2). When this study is complete and
o
o
o
o
t4
Cell48 Environmerrot n pQ, and License Amendment Request
S afe ty Ev a luatio n Rep o rt
approved, the Executive Secretary will review the current Reclamation Plan and determine if
future changes to the cover system are needed to ensure compliance with the performance
criteria contained in Parts I.D.13 and t.D,12 of the Permit. If it is determined that changes are
needed, the Reclamation Plan will be revised to incorporate any such changes. Being that the
details have not been finalized at this time, the approved 2000 cover design and basis (Revision
3.0) continue to be referenced in the November 24,2009 Reclamation Plan submittal.
To protect the State's interests, the Division will not authorize Cell4B to operate until an
updated financial surety is in place for completing final reclamation of the Mill Facility and for
conducing post-closure care of the site. A new condition has been added to the License (see
License Condition 9.11) to require that an updated Reclamation Plan, and revised Specifications
for Reclamation, be submitted to the Executive Secretary for review and approval prior to
placement of tailings and wastewater in Cell 48. The revised Reclamation Plan required by
Condition 9.ll requires that information on final cover design and final stormwater control
systems be provided, together with estimated costs to complete final closure of the Mill Facility,
including the costs for constructing the final closure cover and drainage systems associated with
Cell 48. The revised surety would then be based on that revised, approved plan. If, at the time of
commencement of operation of Cell 48, the Executive Secretary has approved amendments to
the November 24,2009 Reclamation Plan submittal, either as a result of the 2007 License
Renewal Application review process or as a result of the Infiltration Study, then such
amendments would also apply to Cell48 and the revised surety. Any changes to the Reclamation
Plan made after operations of Cell 48 begin, either through the 2007 License Renewal
Application review process, the tnfiltration Study, or otherwise, will apply to all tailings cells,
and the surety will be revised at that time to reflect any such amendments.
Refer also to evaluation under UAC R317-6-6.3: Ground Water Discharge Permit Application,
as stated below.
FINDING:
The Division will incorporate a new License condition to ensure that the requirements of UAC
R313-24-3(l)(d) are satisfied and that Licensee submits the promised revisions to the cover
design, the Reclamation Plan, and the Specifications for Reclamation to incorporate Cell 48, and
the appropriate required supporting analyses and calculations, and that the Division will review
and approve these submittals before Cell 48 is placed into service.
15
Cell48 Environmertrt R)rt and License Amendment Reques, a
S afe ty Ev aluati o; n Rep o rt
10CFR40.26(CX2): GENERAL LICENSE
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40.26(o)(2): "The general
license in paragraph (a) of this section is subject to the documentation of daily inspections of
tailings or waste retention systems and the immediate notification of the Executive Secretary, of
any failure in a tailings or waste retention system that results in a release of tailings or waste
into unrestricted areas, or of any unusual conditions (conditions not contemplated in the design
of the retention system) that if not coruected could lead to failure of the system and result in a
release of tailings or waste into unrestricted areas; and any additional requirements the
Executive Secretary may by order deem necessary. The licensee shall retain this documentation
of each daily inspection as a recordfor three yeqrs after each inspection is documented."
SAFETY EVALUATION:
The system of conducting inspections, submitting reports, and retaining documents used at the
mill is set out in the mill's original License Application and in subsequent renewal applications.
The most recently approved License renewal application was submitted to NRC in August, l99l
and was approved by NRC in March 7997, at which time NRC renewed the License for 10 years,
with an expiration date of March 31, 2007 .
The Licensee submitted License Renewal Application in February 2007 (DUSA 2007b), thereby
placing the License into timely renewal. Section 6.3 of the 2007 License Renewal Application
describes the mill's systems relating to Management Controls, the ALARA Program, Training
and Security, and refers to a number of Standard Operating Procedures, such as the mill's
Environmental Protection Manual, Radiation Protection Manual and ALARA Program that are
appended to the 2007 License Renewal Application and which further detail the mill's systems of
inspections, reporting and retaining documents.
The Executive Secretary is currently reviewing the 2007 License Renewal Application through
which the Executive Secretary will determine whether the administrative systems listed above
continue to satisfy all regulatory requirements. Those matters apply to the mill generally and the
mill's tailings system as a whole, not to Cell 48 alone, and are therefore more appropriately part
of the License Renewal review process rather than the review process for Cell 48.
NRC evidenced its approval of all such systems through the renewal of the License in 1997, with
an expiration date of March 31,2007. License Condition 9.3 of the mill's renewed NRC Source
Material License states:
"The licensee shall conduct operations in accordance with statements, representations,
and conditions contained in the license renewal application submitted by letter dated
August 23, 1991, as revised by submittals dated January 13, and April 7, 1992,
November 22, 1994, July 27, 1995, December 13, and December 31, 1996, andJanuary
l6
Cell48 Environmenrot nQ, and License Amendment Request
S a.fe ty Ev a luat i on Rep o rt
30, 1997, which are hereby incorporated by reference, and for the'Standby Trust
Agreement, dated April 29, 1997, except where superseded by license conditions below."
License Condition 9.3 currently contains similar language.
The Licensee has implemented an extensive environmental monitoring and reporting system,
including the conducting and documenting daily inspections of tailings and waste retention
systems. The Licensee's program requires the Executive Secretary immediately to be notified of
any failure in a tailings or waste retention system that results in a release of tailings or waste into
unrestricted areas (refer to Section2.3 of the November 24,2009 Reclamation Plan submittal
(DUSA 2009b, currently under Division review), Part I.G.3 of the Permit, and the mill's
Emergency Response Plan). Documentation of daily inspections is retained for at least three
years after each inspection is documented.
These monitoring, inspection, and record keeping requirements will apply to Cell 48 upon
completion of construction and start of operations.
FINDING:
The information submitted by the Licensee in the Cell 48 ER and related documents satisfies the
requirements of UAC R3l3-24-4 that invokes the requirements of 10CFR40.26(o)(2), as they
involve Cell48.
t7
Celt 48 Environmenrot fi, and License Amendment Request O
S afety Ev aluati o n Rep o rt
10CFR40.31(H): APPLICATION FOR SPECIFIC LICENSES
REGULATORY BASIS:
UA invokes the following requirement from 10CF : "An application for a
license to receive, possess, and use source materialfor uranium or thori,um milliig or bypioduct
material, as defined in L0CFR40, at sites formerly associated with such mitling sha'il containproposed written specifications relating to milling operations and the disposition of thebyproduct material to achieve the requirements and objectives set forth in Appendix A of10CFR40' Each application must clearly demonstrate how the requirements and'obiectives sit
forth in Appendix A of 10CFR40 have been addressed. Failure to clearly demonstrate how therequirements and obiectives in Appendix A have been addressed shall be grounds for refusing toaccept an application."
SAFETY EVALUATION:
The original application for the License and each renewal, including the 2007 License RenewalApplication submitted to and currently being by the Division, contain written specifications
relating to milling operations and the disposition of the resulting byproduct material to achievethe requirements and objectives set forth in Appendix A of I0-CFR part 40. Each suchapplication has demonstrated how the requirements and objectives set forth in Appendix A of 10CFR Part 40 have been addressed. Issuance of the License in 1980 and renewals in 1985 and
1997 by NRC attest to the fact that such requirements have been satisfied.
Refer also to the evaluation under l0CFR40.2 6(C)(2): General License (refer to pages 16 and 17 ,above).
The written mill specifications relating to milling operations and the disposition of the resultingbyproduct material prepared to achieve the requirements and objectives set forth in Appendix ,{of l0 CFR Part 40 are contained in Sections 4.0 and 5.0 of the 2OO7 License -Renewal
Application and in Sections 3.0 and 4.0 of the lgg2License Renewal Application. NRC approvalof those specifications is evidenced by License Condition q.: of the License. Those
specifications are currently being reviewed by the Executive Secretary as part of the 2002
License Renewal Application review process.
FINDING:
The information submitted by the Licensee in the Cell48 ER and related documents demonstrate
that the requirements of UAC R3l3-24-4 that invokes the requirements of l0CFR40.3l(h) have
been satisfied, as they involve Cell 48.
18
Cell 48 Environmerrot n"i, and License Amendment Request
Safnty Evaluation Report
10CFR40.61: RECORDS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the followine requirement from 10CFR40.61:
"(a) Each person who receives source or byproduct material pursuant to a license issued
pursuant to the regulations in 10CFR40 shall keep records showing the receipt, transfer, and
disposal of this source or byproduct material as follows:
(1) The licensee shall retain each record of receipt of source or byproduct material as
long as the material is possessed and for three years following transfer or disposition of the
source or byproduct material.
(2) The licensee who transferred the material shall retain each record of transfer or
source or byproduct material until the Executive Secretary terminates each license that
authorizes the activity that is subject to the recordkeeping requirement.
(j) The licensee shall retain each record of disposal of source or byproduct material until
the Executive Secretary terminates each license that authorizes the activity that is subject to the
r e c o rdke eping r e quir eme nt.
(4) If source or byproduct material is combined or mixed with other licensed material
and subsequently treated in a manner that makes direct correlation of a receipt record with a
transfer, export, or disposition record impossible, the licensee may use evaluative techniques
(such as Jirst-in-first-out), to make the records that are required by 10CFR40 account for 100
percent of the material received.:
@) fhe licensee shall retain each record that is required by the regulations in 10CFR40 or by
license conditionfor the period specified by the appropriate regulation or license condition. If a
retention period is not otherwise specified by regulation or license condition, each record must
be maintained until the Executiye Secretary terminates the license that authorizes the activity
that is subject to the recordkeeping requirement."
SAFETY EVALUATION:
The mi|l has been operating since 1980 subject to and in compliance with the requirements of 10
CFR 40.61. The construction and operation of Ce1l 48 will not affect the application of these
existing requirements to the mill, which requirements will continue to be met. Records of Cell
48 construction, tailings and wastewater placement, and other operational activities conducted in
Cell 48 will be maintained in accordance with requirements specified in the Ground Water
Discharge Permit. Commitments the Licensee has previously made in licensing actions by the
NRC and the Division, when applied to the construction and operation of Cell 48, will satisfu
applicable requirements.
Refer also to the evaluation under 10CFR40.26(CX2): General License (refer to pages 16 and 17,
above).
t9
Cell48 Environmertot A)t and License Amendment Request O
Safety Evaluation Report
Direct requirements of the applicable regulations, such as the time period for which records must
be retained, apply to the entire mill facility, and need not be repeated or reflected in the Cell 48
procedures.
FINDING:
The information submitted by the Licensee in the Cell 48 ER and related documents satisfies the
requirements of UAC R3l3-24-4 that invokes the requirements of 10CFR40.61, as they involve
Cell48.
20
Cell 48 Environmentat n}t and License Amendment Request
Safety Ev aluation Report
10CFR40.65(A)(1): EFFLUENT MONITORING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the followine requirement from 10CFR40.65(aX1)i "Each licensee
authorized to possess and use source material in uranium milling ... shall . . . within 60 days
after January I and July I of each year thereafter, submit a report to the Executive Secretary;
which report must specify the quantity of each of the principal radionuclides released to
unrestr.icted areas in liquid and in gaseous effluents during the previous six months of operation,
and such other information as the Executive Secretary may require the licensee to estimate
maximum potential annual radiation doses to the public resulting from effluent releases. If
quantities of radioactive materials released during the reporting period are significantly above
the licensee's design objectives previously reviewed as part of the licensing action, the report
shall cover this specifically. On the basis of such reports and any additional information the
Executive Secretary may obtain from the licensee or others, the Executive Secretary may from
time to time require the licensee to take such action as the Executive Secretary deems
appropriate."
SAFETY EVALUATION:
The Licensee has implemented an environmental monitoring and reporting system, including
semi-annually documenting liquid and gaseous effluents from the facility. The requirements for
this monitoring program are mandated under existing License Condition 1 1.2.
Refer also to the evaluation under 10CFR40.26(CX2): General License (refer to pages 16 and 17,
above).
FINDING:
The information submitted by the Licensee in the Cell 4B ER and related documents satisfies the
requirements of UAC R3l3-24-4 that invokes the requirements of 10CFR40.65(a)(1), as they
involve Cell48.
21
Cetl48 Environmental trt and License Amendment Reques, (a
S afe ty Ev a luati o n Rep ort
10CFR40 INTRODUCTION: CAPACITY OF TAILINGS OR WASTE SYSTEMS OVER
THE LIFETIME OF MILL OPERATIONS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R3t3-24-4 invokes the followine requirement from I0CFR40. Appendix A. Introdustion:
"The specifications must be developed considering the expected full capacity of tailings or waste
systems and the lifetime of mill operations, Where later expansions of systems or operations may
be likely (for example, where large quantities of ore now marginally uneconomical may be
stoclEiled), the amenability of the disposal system to accommodate increased capacities without
degradation in long-term stability and other performance factors must be evaluated ."
SAFETY EVALUATION:
While proposed Cell 48 has not yet been constructed, it was contemplated, described, and
assessed in the original License application to the NRC, being a critical component of the facility
design and evaluated as part of the FES (NRC 1979). Initial environmental analyses and the
License contemplated six tailings cells that would contain approximately 11 million tons of
tailings solids, which would be the tailings resulting from 15 years of mill operations at full
capacity (see Section3.2.4.7 of NRC 1979 and Section 3.4 in both Appendices H and I of D&M
1978). These are evaporation pond Cell 1-I (now referred to as Cell l), a second evaporation
pond (Cell I-E), which has not been constructed, and a series of 8O-acre cells, including Cells 2,
3,4, and 5 (see Figure 3.4 of NRC, 1978). To date, Cells 2 and 3 (80 acres each) and half of Cell
4 (Cell 4A, 40 acres) have been constructed. Construction of Cell 48 (area of floor and interior
slopes of Cell 4B will encompass approximately 40 acres) will consume the second 40 acres of
the previously authorized 80 acre Cell 4 footprint, but will not exceed the total footprint
conternplated in the original License application. Cell 48 would have a maximum capacity of
about 1.9 million cubic yards of tailings material storage (as measured below the required 3-foot
freeboard).
FINDING:
The information submitted by the Licensee in the Cell 4B ER and related documents satisfies the
requirements of UAC R3l3-24-4 that invokes the requirements of 10CFR40. Appendix A,
Introduction, as they involve Cell 48.
22
Cell 48 Environmertrt R"p; and License Amendment Request
Safe ty Evaluation Report
1OCFR4O APPENDIX A, INTRODUCTION: ALTERNATIVE REQUIREMENTS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the followine requirement from 10CFR40. Appendix A. lntroduction:
"Licensees or applicants may propose alternatives to the specific requirements in this appendix.
The alternative proposals may take into account local or regional conditions, including geologt,
topography, hydrology, and meteorology. The Executive Secretary may find that the proposed
alternatives meet the Executive Secretary's requirements if the alternatives will achieve a level
of stabilization and containment of the sites concerned, and a level of protection for public
health, safety, and the environment from radiological and nonradiological hazards associated
with the sites, which is equivalent to, to the extent practicable, or more stringent than the level
which would be achieved by the requirements of this Appendix and the standards promulgated by
the Utah Administrative Code, Rule R317-6, Ground Water Quality Protection."
SAFETY EVALUATION:
Proposed Cell 48 has been designed and will be constructed and operated in accordance with all
applicable regulations, permits and licenses. Beyond the more specific requirements and Permit /
License conditions imposed by the State of Utah, the Licensee has proposed no alternatives to
the specific requirements in l0 CFR Part 40, Appendix A in the design, construction, or
operation of Cell48.
FINDING:
The information submitted by the Licensee in the Cell 4B ER and related documents satisfies the
requirements of UAC R313-24-4 that invokes the requirements of 10CFR40, Appendix A,
Infroduction, as they involve Cell 48.
23
Cell48 Environmentot n)t and License Amendment Reques, a
10cFR40 APPENDX A, CRTTERTON
ONGOING MAINTENANCE
PERMANENT ISOLATION WITHOUT
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement ftom I0CFR40 Appendix A. Criterion I : "The
general goal or broad objective in siting and design decisions is permanent isolation of tailings
and associated contaminants by minimizing disturbance and dispersion by naturalforces, andTo
do so without ongoing maintenance. For practical reasons, speci/ic siting decisions and design
standards must involve finite times (e.g., the longevity design standard in Criterion 6). The
following site features which will contribute to such a goal or objective must be considered in
selecting arnong alternative tailings disposal sites or judging the adequacy of existing tailings
sites:
Remoteness from populated areas;
Hydrologic and other natural conditions as they contribute to continued immobilization and
isolation of contaminants from ground-water sources; and
Potential for minimizing erosion, disturbance, and dispersion by natural forces over the long
term,
The site selection process must be an optimization to the maximum extent reasonably achievable
in terms of these features.
In the selection of disposal sites, primary emphasis must be given to isolation of tailings or
wastes, a matter having longlerm impacts, as opposed to consideration only of short-term
convenience or benefits, such as minimization of transportation or land acquisition costs. Wileisolation of tailings will be a function of both site and engineering design, overriding
consideration must be given to sitingfeatures given the longierm nature of the tailings hazards.
Tailings should be disposed of in a manner that no active maintenance is required to preserve
conditions of the site."
SAFETY EVALUATION:
The NRC has evaluated and accepted the natural site at which the White Mesa facility is locatedin its review of the original License application. The initial NRC evaluation, as well as
evaluations of subsequent License renewal applications, have involved consideration of all
tailings management (impoundment) areas, including the area of proposed Cell 48. Thus,
suitability of the existing site is beyond the appropriate scope of this evaluation. Because of the
climatic conditions at the mill site, potential surface water inflows are typically very small and
easily diverted and managed by engineering design, without massive diversion structures.
24
Cell48 Environmertd R;rt and License Amendment Request
Safety Evaluation
Notwithstanding the above, during review of the License renewal application the Executive
Secretary will require the Licensee to examine certain other criteria related to isolation of the
tailings, including engineering design of the final cover system and final drainage systems for
final ieclamation of the tailings management cells, including Cell 48, and to prepare and submit
a final Reclamation Plan, together with associated final Specifications for Reclamation, for the
Mill Facility. Elements addressed in the final Reclamation Plan will include, but not be limited
to, the following:
o The ability of the cover system to respond without damage to whatever settlement and
differential settlement may occur following construction of the cover;
Stability against intermixing of cover layers with different size gradations;
Protection provided to clay layers, if applicable, from freeze-thaw damage and
desiccation;
Protection provided against wind and surface water erosion;
Protection of the radon barrier against biointrusion by deep-rooted plants and burrowing
animals; and
The Division will review the final design of drainage systems included for the final
reclamation of the tailings management cells, including Cell 48, as provided in the final
Reclamation Plan that the Division will require the Licensee to submit, to assess design
features for transitioning to, and conforming with, the natural surrounding landscape.
The cover design will also provide for reduction of all perimeter slopes of the final cover
closed tailings management cells to 5h:1v, or less, to minimize the potential for active
management and repair of the slopes to be required.
The Licensee is currently operating Cell 4A under the Cell 4A BAT Monitoring, Operations and
Maintenance Plan (UDRC 2008a). That Plan describes the acceptable operational methods for
discharge into the cell of tailing solids and solution from pre-determined locations around the
perimetlr of the cell. The final tailings elevation will be less than the top of the flexible
membrane liner (FML). Once the tailings solids reach the prescribed elevation, they will be
contoured to final grades and the dewatering process will begin, concurrently with placement of
the initial platform fill. Due to the proposed approval of Cell 48, certain changes are needed in
the existing BAT Monitoring, Operations and Maintenance Plan. These are mandated by the
Permit, and will be approved prior to final approval for use of Cell 48 and prior to receiving
liquids and tailings.
Installation of the final reclamation cap will be in accordance with the final Reclamation Plan
approved at the time of cell closure. Currently the November 24, 2009 Reclamation Plan
submittal (DUSA 2009b) is under Division review and is part of the License Renewal
Application. That final Reclamation Plan, once approved, is intended to prepare the facility so
tfral it can be transferred to DOE for perpetual care and maintenance. DOE's perpetual care and
maintenance will be funded by the Licensee's Long Term Care fund.
With respect to Cell 48, prior to placement of the approved cover, free water will be evaporated
or pumped from the cell and the tailings will be graded to ensure that the final tailings elevations
and contours are according to the approved design. The initial layer of the reclamation cap, or
platform fill, will be installed over the contoured tailings. This activity may take place in
increments as distinct portions of the cell are filled. The purposes of the platform fill are to
a
a
a
o
25
ITRSCell48 Enyironmenrot fir, and License Amendment Request O
Safety Evaluation Report
I
minimize the amount of radon emanating from the tailings sands; to minimize the potential forwindblown tailings; and to place overburden material to create a surcharge on the placed tailings
to aid in dewatering of the tailings.
Once free water has been evaporated or pumped from Cell 48, the slimes drain system will beactively pumped to remove as much solution as possible from the tailings sands and slimes.
Dewatering of the tailings will allow the material to consolidate, reducing potential differential
settlement after final cover placement, and reducing the potential for liquefaction of the tailings
during possible seismic events. The slimes drain design and dewatering modeling is presented In
the Revised Cell 48 Design Report, Appendix D (DUSA 2009a). Based on thJse calculations,DUSA predicted that approximately 5.5 years of de-watering operations at Cell 48 will provide a
steady-state condition of I foot of leachate over the cell's flexible membrane liner at the time ofclosure. All these factors will help to ensure that the final cover installation is maintenance free
once the site is turned over to DOE for long term surveillance and monitoring.
The geotechnical stability of the tailings impoundment, slope stability, liquefaction potential and
settlement are addressed in Appendix D of the November 24,2OOg Reclamation Plan submittal(DUSA 2009b), which is currently under Division review. The liquefaction potential of thetailings solids was evaluated in Attachment E to the November 24,2009 Reclamation plan
submittal (DUSA 2009b), which is currently under Division review. Any additional evaluations
relating to embankment stability will be presented in the updated, final Reclamation plan once itis prepared and submitted for review under the License Renewal Application process. TheDivision will review any such additional evaluations to confirm that these evaluations satisfy
applicable requirements. If necessary, the Division will also impose additional License
conditions to ensure that all requirements applicable to Cell 4B are suiisfied as part of its final
closure.
FINDING:
As described above, the Division will require the Licensee to submit a final Reclamation plan,
and revised Specifications for Reclamation, with appropriate required supporting analyses anj
calculations, as part of the License Renewal Application process.
The information contained in the Cell 48 Environmental Report and other relevant documents
the Applicant has submitted, in combination with the proposed License condition indicate thatthe requirements of UAC R3l3-24-4 that invokes the requirernent 10CFR40, Appendix A,criterion I will yet be satisfied prior to placing cell 48 into service.
26
Cell48 Environme*rt A"Q, and License Amendment Request
Evaluation
10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 2: PROLIFERATION
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the followine requirement from 10CFR40 Appendix A. Criterion 2: "Zo
avoid proliferation of small waste disposal sites and thereby reduce perpetual surveillance
obligations, byproduct material from in situ extraction operations, such as residues from
solution evaporation or contaminated control processes, and wastes from small remote above
ground extraction operations must be disposed of at existing large mill tailings disposal sites;
unless, considering the nature of the wastes, such as their volume and specific activity, and the
costs and environmental impacts of transporting the wastes to a large disposal site, such offsite
disposal is demonstrated to be impracticable or the advantages of onsite burial clearly outweigh
the benefits of reducing the perpetual surveillance obligations."
SAFETY EVALUATION:
The mill's tailings management system has been designed as a large permanent waste disposal
site, which can help to reduce proliferation of small sites on a national level, and thereby reduce
perpetual surveillance obligations for the Federal govemment. This includes DUSA acceptance
ior p"rmu.rent disposal, blproduct material from in situ leach (ISL) operations from outside of
Utah that are licensed by the NRC or a conesponding Agreement State. License Condition 10.5
permits the mill to dispose of such ISL byproduct material, subject to specified conditions. Such
disposal has historically and is currently done at the White Mesa mill.
License Condition 10.5.E requires the Licensee to submit for Executive Secretary approval a
revised written Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for ISL disposal on or before December 1,
2010. The revised SOP shall describe the documentation required for ISL disposal, which is to
include several items.
FINDING:
The revised SOP to be submitted by the Licensee as required by License Condition 10.5.8. is to
include several items, mentioned below, that will protect tailings cell liners from damage, as well
as increase the compaction and organization of the ISL material disposal areas.
These items are specified to include that the ISL material disposal area must be
located on a tailings beach area of the disposal cellor on an area of the cell that is
underlain by tailings sands;
The elevation of the material disposal area will not exceed the plane or grade of
the elevations of the uppermost flexible membrane liner of the tailings cell; ISL
byproduct material will be segregated from any mill material and equipment and
other ISL byproduct material sources;
Absence of void space inside barrels disposed, including physical verification
before disposal; and
A.
B.
C.
27
Cell48 Environmenat nl)t and License Amendment Request O
Safety Evaluation Report
D. Detailed engineering drawings which dernonstrate there is at least 4 feet of
tailings sands under the bottom of each disposal area; and the bottom of each
disposal area is located at least 12 feet from the sides or dikes of the tailings cell.
The information submitted by the Licensee in the Cell 48 ER and related documents satisfies the
requirements of UAC R3l3-24-4 that invokes the requirements of I0CFR40, Appendix A,
Criterion 2, as they involve Cell 48.
28
Cell 48 Environmenrot npr, and License Amendment Request
S afe ty Ev a luati on Rep o r t
10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 3: PLACEMENT BELOW GRADE
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the followine requirement from l0CFR40. Aopendix A. Criterion 3 i "The
"prime option" for disposal of tailings is placement below grade, either in mines or specially
excavated pits (that is, where the need for any specially constructed retention structure is
eliminated). The evaluation of alternative sites and disposal methods performed by mill
operators in support of their proposed tailings disposal program (provided in applicants'
environmental reports) must reJlect serious consideration of this disposal mode. In some
instances, below grade disposal may not be the most environmentally sound approach, such as
might be the case if a ground-water formation is relatively close to the surface or not very well
isolated by overlying soils and rock. Also, geologic and topographic conditions might make full
below grade burial impracticable: For example, bedrock may be sfficiently near the surface
that blasting would be required to excavate a disposal pit at excessive cost, and more suitable
alternative sites are not available. Where full below grade burial is not practicable, the size of
retention structures, and size and steepness of slopes associated exposed embanlcrnents must be
minimized by excavation to the maximum extent reasonably achievable or appropriate given the
geologic and hydrologic conditions at a site. In tltese cases, it must be demonstrated that an
above grade disposal program will provide reasonably equivalent isolation of the tailings from
natural eros ional forces."
SAFETY EVALUATION:
The first stage construction of the Mill's Tailings Management System, consisting of Cell 1
(originally designated Cell 1-f, Cell2, and the Cell2 Safety Dike (Cell 3 Dike) was authorized
by NRC License Amendment l, to SUA-I358, on October 12, 1979. The authorization referred
to design documents, questions and responses during the review of the design. A copy of the
License Amendment was included in Attachment D to DUSA 2010a.
Construction of the embankments and liner systems for the Initial Phase and Second Phase
(including Cell 1, Cell 2, Cell 3, and the Cell 4 dike) was authoized by NRC License
Amendment 10, to SUA-1358, on February 10, 1982. The authorization referred to design
documents, questions and responses during the review of the design, and was essentially a
revision to the earlier construction authorization of the first stage construction. A copy of that
License amendment is included in Attachment D to DUSA 2010a.
Construction and operation of Cell 4A was authorized by NRC License Amendment 20, to SUA-
1358, on March 1, 1990. The authorization referred to design documents, questions and
responses during the review of the design, and was essentially a revision to the earlier
construction authorization of the first stage construction. The authorization also set maximum
solution elevations for Cell 1, Cell 3 and Cell 4,A'. A copy of that License amendment is included
in Attachment D to UDSA 2010a.
29
Evaluation Report
Cell48 Environmentot n)t and License Amendment Request O
Cell 48 will be excavated and constructed in a manner similar to that used for existing Cells 1, 2,
3 and 44. It is anticipated that some blasting will be required in order to construct Cell 48.
Existing cells are partially below grade because of constraints imposed by the natural topography
and bedrock conditions at the site. All tailings cells at the site are situated in a natural swale,
thanks to the presence of minor natural north-south ridges that were located immediately west
and east of the tailings cell locations. During construction, the tailings cells have been and will
be excavated to the top of and partially within bedrock. This results in the north and east dikes of
the cells being at or near surface grade. The southern dike of the southern-most cells (Cells 4A
and 48) has and will have an above-grade dike. Similarly, the western dike of Cell 48 will be
partially above grade,
Geologic and topographic conditions make full below grade burial impracticable for two reasons.
First, bedrock is sufficiently near the surface that blasting, at excessive cost, would be required to
fully excavate a cell. Second, because of the natural topography that grades to the southwest,
surface grade burial at the southwest corners of the cells would require much deeper sub-grade
burial at the northeast corners. Previously, the NRC determined that more suitable alternative
sites are not available. However, the size and steepness of the slopes associated with the exposed
embankments of existing cells are, and Cell 4B will be, limited by excavation to the maximum
extent reasonably achievable or appropriate depth given the geologic and hydrologic conditions
at the site. As required by l0 CFR Pafi 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6, the cells, including Cell 48
have been designed to provide reasonable assurance that radiolo gical hazards will be suitably
controlled for 1,000 years, to the extent reasonably achievable, ffid, in any case, for at least 200
years.
FINDING:
The information submitted by the Licensee in the Cell 48 ER and related documents satisfies the
requirements of UAC R313-24-4 that invokes the requirements of 10CFR40, Appendix A,
Criterion 3, as they involve Cell48.
30
Cell48 Environmenrot n"D, and License Amendment Request I'RSS afe ty Ev a lua ti o n Rep o r t
lOCFR4O, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 4: LOCATION AND DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the followine requirement from 10CFR40. Aopendix A. Criterion 4i "The
following site and design criteria must be adhered to whether tailings or wastes are disposed of
above or below grade.
(a) Upstream rainfall catchment areas must be minimized to decrease erosion potential and the
size of the floods which could erode or wash out sections of the tailings disposal area.
(b) Topographic features should provide good wind protection.
(c) Embanlonent and cover slopes must be relatively flat after final stabilization to minimize
erosion potential and to provide conservative factors of safety assuring long-term stability. The
broad objective should be to contour final slopes to grades which are as close as possible to
those which would be provided if tatlings were disposed of below grade; this could, for example,
lead to slopes of about l0 horizontal to I vertical (l0h:1v) or less steep. In general, slopes
should not be steeper than about 5h:|v. Where steeper slopes are proposed, reasons why a slope
less steep than 5h: lv would be impracticable should be provided, and compensating factors and
conditions which make such slopes acceptable should be identified.
(d) A full self-sustaining vegetative cover must be established or rock c:over employed to reduce
wind and water erosion to negligible levels.
Where a full vegetative coyer is not likely to be self-sustaining due to climatic or other
conditions, such as in semi-arid and arid regions, rock cover must be employed on slopes of the
impoundment system. The ... (Executive Secretary) will consider relaxing this requirement for
extremely gentle slopes such as those which may exist on the top of the pile.
The following factors must be considered in establishing the final rock cover design to avoid
displacement of rock particles by human and animal trffic or by natural process, and to
preclude undercutting and piping:
o Shape, size, composition, and gradation of rock particles (excepting bedding material
average particles size must be at least cobble size or greater);
o Rock cover thiclcness and zoning of particles by size; and
o Steepness of underlying slopes.
Individual rockfragments must be dense, sound, and resistant to abrasion, and must be free from
cracl<s, seans, and other defects that would tend to unduly increase their destruction by water
andfrost actions. Weak, friable, or laminated aggregate may not be used.
Rock covering of slopes may be unnecessary where top covers are very thick ( or less); bulk
cover materials have inherently favorable erosion resistance characteristics; and, there is
31
cell48 Environmentot n)t and License Amendment Request a
sofut, Euolrotion Rroor, t"'A*"d*'nt R'Qu"tt J IIRS
negligible drainage catchment area upstream of the pile and good wind protection as described
in points (a) and (b) of this Criterion.
Furthermore, all impoundment surfaces must be contoured to avoid areas of concentrated
surface runoff or abrupt or sharp changes in slope gradient. In addition to rock ioru on slopes,
areas toward which surface runoff might be directed must be well protected with substantial iock
cover (rip rap). In addition to providing for stability of the impoundment system itself, overall
stability, erosion potential, and geomorphology of surrounding terrain mast be evaluated to
assure that there are not ongoing or potential processes, such as gully erosion, which would lead
to impoundment instability.
(e) The impoundment may not be located near a capable fault that could cause a maximum
credible earthquake larger than that which the impoundment could reasonably be expected to
withstand. As used in this criterion, the term "capable fault" has the same meaning as iefined in
section fIIk) of Appendix A of I0 CFR Part 100. The term "maxinutm credible earthquake,,
means that earthquake which would cquse the maximum vibratory ground motion based upon on
evaluation of earthquake potential considering the regional and local geology and seismologlt
and specific characteristics of local subsurface material.
(fl The impoundment, where feasible, should be designed to incorporate features which willpromote deposition, For example, design features which promote deposition
suspended in any runoffwhich flows into the impoundment area might be utilized;
such a designfeature would be to enhance the thiclvtess of cover over time."
SAFETY EVALUATION:
o.f sediment
the object of
In its initial licensing process and subsequent License renewal reviews, the NRC has reviewed
and accepted site characteristics, including upstream rainfall catchment area, wind protection,
and proximity to capable faults.
Seismic Hazards - DUSA provided a Technical Memorandum (Tetra Tech 2010) presenting an
updated seismic hazard evaluation study that includes: (l) a summary of seismic studies done
through 2006 to develop a design peak ground acceleration (PGA) for the design of disposal
cells and for use during the operational period of those cells; (2) a review of updated data
(through January 2010) on seismic activity within 200 miles of the White Mesa mill iite; and (3)
derivation of an updated predicted peak Horizontal Ground Acceleration (Peak HGA) value,
based on a 10,000-year retum period, for use in the final disposal closure design effort for
proposed Cell 48. The study addressed updated published information, including the most
recent USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps. The study also considered other studies, including
2008 Deaggregation data, Next Generation Attenuation (2007) Project information, and
consideration of the attenuation relationship of Campbell and Bozorgnia (2007).
Results of the study indicated that Peak HGA value of 0.15 g is appropriate for use in evaluating
the stability of strucfures proposed in the final closure design of site facilities, including Cell 48.
The study concluded that, for a pseudo-static analysis, a value of 213 the Peak HGA, oi 0.1 g, is
appropriate, which is consistent with International Building Code (lBC) guidelines (IBC 2006),
and with guidance contained in DOE 1989. The value oT 0.1 g is consistent with the value of
32
Cell48 Environmentat n}rt and License Amendment Request
S afe ty Ev a luati o n Repo rt
design acceleration used in previous stability analyses done for the site. The
reviewed and found this updated seismic study to be acceptable.
has
Cover System Slopes - All slopes on the reclaimed mill site and tailings are 5h:1v or less
(gentler). As one of several conditions in the Permit (Part I.H.2), an infiltration analysis of the
tailings cover and re-desigl of the cover for better.performance is in progress for all disposal
cells at the site. It is anticipated that the final revised cover design will address surface water
management issues and other design improvements associated with the addition of Cell 48.
To ensure that the State's interests are adequately protected with regards to Cell 48, as stated in
License Condition 9.11, the Division will require submission and approval of a revised, final
Reclamation Plan and revised Specifications for Reclamation (Attachment A to the Reclamation
Plan) that include the final cover design selected for implementation at the White Mesa Mill site,
including Cell 48, and required supporting analyses. The revised Plan and revised Specifications
for Reclamation are to be submitted and receive Executive Secretary approval before disposal of
any tailings in Cell48.
Cover Material Properties - Physical properties of the construction materials and the stability
of the Cells I ,2,3, and 4,{ impoundments are discussed in the November 24,2009 Reclamation
Plan recently submitted by the Licensee and currently under separate review by the Division.
Physical properties and stability issues for Cell 48 will be addressed by the revised Reclamation
Plan required under License Condition 9.11. Potential alternative cover designs for all the
disposal cells are currently being reviewed by the Division for the facility in conjunction with the
Division's review of an Infiltration and Contaminant Transport Study (see Permit, Part I.H.2). It
is possible that a future acceptable alternative design could reduce the quantity, or eliminate most
of the rip rap material needed for the final reclamation top slope.
The Licensee also provided information confirming that, based on the guidance contained in
NUREG-I623, rock from the potential Brown Canyon Site borrow site would not be acceptable
for use in areas of the White Mesa Site that the NRC would define as potentially "frequently
saturated" areas. In terms of the cover design now found in the currently approved Reclamation
Plan (Revision 3.0), this would include rock material for the base of the side slope areas of the
tailings cells. If volume requirements necessitated the use of a second source, additional testing
would need to be conducted on the Brown Canyon site. However, absent additional acceptable
test results, the Brown Canyon site will be rejected by the Executive Secretary as a potential
borrow source for rip rap in areas classified as "frequently saturated areas". As a result, the
Brown Canyon rock material could potentially be used in other areas not classified as "frequently
saturated areas". The revised cover design currently being evaluated under Part 1.H.2 of the
Permit, may reduce the amount of rip rap material required, and therefore reduce the volumes
required from each ofthe designated source areas.
With regards to Cell 48, it is assumed that the cover material will be specified in a similar
fashion as was already approved by the NRC in the Licensee's Reclamation Plan, Rev. 3.0 (IUC
2000); under the assumption that the final cover system will be of a rock-armored design, similar
to that found in Attachment H of the November 24,2009 Reclamation Plan submittal (DUSA
2009b). Said Attachment H presents the investigation and testing details for three potential
borrow sources for the rip rap material needed for the final reclamation cap. The Brown Canyon
site was found to be the least preferable of the sites, and also happens to be the second least
JJ
Cell48 Environmenrrt n), and License Amendment Request O
accessible of the sites. For the cost estimate included as Attachment C to the Novernb er 24,2009
Reclamation Plan submittal (DUSA 20090b), the North Pit was assumed. The original basis for
looking at several potential sites in the area was to ensure that sufficient quantiiies would be
available for the top surface as well as the side slopes and toe aprons.
Material characteristics of tailings material and cover soils proposed for use at the site are
described in D&M, 1978 and in Rev. 3.0, (ruC 2000) of the Reclamation Plan. Surface water
management, erosion protection design, and tailings cell cover design are described in
Attachment A and Attachment G of the November 24,2009 Reclamation Plan submittal (DUSA
2009b). Analysis of freeze-thaw cycles on the radon barrier are included in the 1978 ER, and the
Reclamation Plan, Rev. 3.0 (IUC 2000). It is assumed that these characteristics are still includedin the November 24, 2009 Reclamation Plan submittal (DUSA 2009b), and will be further
evaluated as part of the License Renewal process.
Identification of, and characteristics and performance of, materials to be used in the final cover
system design for the tailings management cells that include Cell 48 will be addressed when the
revised Reclamation Plan Revision 3.2, is submitted pursuant to License Condition 9.11.
Additional updates and possible changes to the cover system design may occur during Division
review of the November 24,2009 Reclamation Plan submittal (DUSA 2009b). As described
above, the Division will require submission and approval of a revised Reclamation plan, and
Revised Specifications for Reclamation, that include the final cover design selected for
implementation at the White Mesa Mill site, including Cell4B, and supporting analyses.
Settlement / Movement Monitoring - Settlement monitors will be installed over areas of
tailings that have reached the final design grade for disposal cells 7,2,3, and 4A, as described in
the November 24,2009 Reclamation Plan submittal (2009b). The vertical movement of these
monitors is evaluated during the placement of the initial platform fill and the dewatering of the
disposal cell. Final cover will be placed following dewatering of the placed tailings platform fill,
reducing the potential for differential settlement and cracking of the radon barrier. Settlement
due to earthquake-induced liquefaction of the tailings solids and the potential impact on the cell
cover is discussed in Attachment E to the November 24, 2OO9 Reclamation Plan submittal(DUSA 2009b), currently under Division review as a part of License renewal process.
Additionally, as described above, the Division will require submission and approval of a revised
Reclamation Plan, and Revised Specifications for Reclamation, that include the final cover
design selected for implementation at the White Mesa Mill site, including Cell 48. The
November 24, 2A09 Reclamation Plan submittal (DUSA 2009b) will be reviewed by the
Executive Secretary as part of the ongoing License Renewal process.
Further, the Division will incorporate new License conditions (Condition ll.7 and 11.8)
requiring the Licensee to submit, for Division approval, written Settlement Monitoring and
Movement (Displacement) Monitoring Standard Operating Procedures for monitoring vertical
settlement in the tailings management cell cover systems and monitoring potential vertical and
horizontal movements in the constructed dike portions of the tailings management cells, as
further described below.
34
Cell48 Environmenrot nnpQ, and License Amendment Request
Evaluation
FINDING:
As described above, on a separate track the Division has added a new license condition (License
Condition 9.11) to ensure that before Cell 48 is put into service that an adequate cover design,
and updated Reclamation Plan (Revision 3.2) and updated Specifications for Reclamation are
provided and approved by the Executive Secretary. Further, at some future time, and as part of
an ongoing License Renewal process this Reclamation Plan may be amended.
The Division will require submission and approval of a Revision 3.2 of the Reclamation Plan and
revised Specifications for Reclamation that include information on final cover design and final
drainage systan design to support updating of the cost estimate for completing reclamation
activities at the White Mesa Mill site, including incorporating cover design requirements for Cell
48 that are similar to those already approved for Cell4,\ (i.e., Revision 3.1 of the Reclamation
Plan). This revised Plan and revised Specifications for Reclamation are to be submitted and
receive Executive Secretary approval before disposal of any tailings in Cell 48.
Additional License Condition 1 1.7 has been added to require the Licensee to submit, for
Executive Secretary approval, a written Settlement Monitoring Standard Operating Procedure
(SOP)_ that describes methods for monitoring vertical settlement in the tailings management cell
cover systems. A new License Condition 1 1.8 has been added to require the Licensee to submit
for review and approval a second SOP for monitoring potential vertical and horizontal
movements in the constructed dike portions of the tailings management cells. The purpose for
both of the SOPs is to record and document cover system and dike settlement and displacement
monitoring data and comparing such data to previous data to track potential movement and
settlement.
The information contained in the Cell 48 Environmental Report and other relevant documents
the Applicant has submitted, in combination with the proposed License Conditions, and with the
requirement by the Division that the Licensee submit a revised, final Reclamation Plan, and
Revised Specifications for Reclamation for Executive Secretary approval, indicate that the
requirements of UAC Ft3l3-24-4 that invokes the requirement 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 4
will yet be satisfied prior to placing Cell48 into service.
35
cell 48 Environmentot n)t and License Amendment Request
Sofrty Eroluatirn Rrport U Itr[El
10cFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 5A(t): cRouND-wATER pRoTECTIoN
STANDARDS
REGULATORY BASIS:
R31 40. A
"Tlte primary ground-water protection standard is a design ttordo,rd 7r, *6r"e impounitdments
used to rnanage uranium and thorium byproduct material. (Jnless exemptid undei paragraph
5A(3) of this criterion, sudace impoundments (except for an existing poriion) must haye i ttiqthat is designed, constructed, and installed to prevent any migiaiton of wastes out of the
impoundment to the adiacent subsurface soil, ground water, or surface water at any time iuring
the active life (including the closure period) of the irnpoundment. The liner may be ionstructed if
rnaterials that may allow wastes to migrate into the liner (but not into the adjacent subsurfaclsoil, ground water, or sudace water) during the active ttfe of the facility, provided that
impoundment closure includes removal or decontamination of att waste reiidues, contaminated
containment system components (liners, etc.), contaminated subsoils, and structures andequipment contaminated with waste and leachate. For impoundments that will be closed with theliner material left in place, the liner must be constructed of materials that can prevent wastes
from migrating into the liner during the active life of thefactltty:,
SAFETY EVALUATION:
As detailed in the Cell 48 Design Report (DUSA 2009a), Cell 48 has been designed with two
synthetic liners, a leak detection layer, and geosynthetic clay liner system, using Best Available
Technology ("BAT"), that will prevent or minimize migration of wastes out o? Cell 48 to theadjacent subsurface soil, ground water, or surface water at any time during the active life(including closure period) of the cell. Further, Cell 48 has been designed to be closed with theliner system left in place. As a result, the liner system will be constructed of materials that can
prevent or minimize wastes from migrating into the liner during the active life of the facility. Itis the intent of the Division to approve the liner system proposed for Cell 48, based on ricent
recommendations of the URS Corporation (URS ZOO}).
The design approach for the liner system to be incorporated into Cell 48 is identical to that usedto design the liner system for Cell 4,{, previously approved by the Division (UDRC 2008b).
Final construction of Cell 48 will be documented by DUSA in a report that will be submitted for
Executive Secretary review and approval before Cell 48 is put into service (see Permit, part
r.H.e).
Refer also to the evaluation under Appendix A, Criterion 3: Placement Below Grade, (refer to
pages 29 and 30 above).
FINDING:
The information contained in the Cell 48 Environmental Report and other relevant documents
the Applicant has submitted indicate that the requirements of UAC R3l3-24-4 that invokes therequirement I0CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 5A(1) have been met.
the
36
Cell48 Environmertd Rt and License Amendment Request
Safety Evaluation
10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 5A(2): LINER
REGULATORY BASIS:
"The liner required by paragraph 5A(1) above must be:
(a) Constructed of materials that have appropriate chemical properties and sfficient strength
and thickness to prevent failure due to pressure gradients (including static head and external
hydrogeologic forces), physical contact with the waste or leachate to which they are exposed,
climatic conditions, the stress of installation, and the stress of daily operation;
(b) Placed upon a foundation or base capable of providing support to the liner and resistance to
pressure gradients above and below the liner to prevent failure of the liner due to settlement,
compression, or uplift; and
(c) Installed to cover all surrounding earth likely to be in contact with the wastes or leachate."
SAFETY EVALUATION:
On September 17, 2008, after submittal of an As-Built Report, the Executive Secretary
authorized the use of the relined Tailings Cell 4,A.. The relining was completed in accordance
with the previously approved Cell 4A Lining System Design Report. A copy of the approval was
included in Attachment D of the Licensee's responses to Round 2 interrogatories.
Cell 48 has also been designed to utilize current BAT, as approved by the Executive Secretary
(URS 2009). This means that Cell 48 will be constructed of materials that have appropriate
chemical properties and sufficient strength and thickness to prevent failure due to pressure
gradients (including static head and external hydrogeologic forces); physical contact with the
waste or leachate to which they are exposed; climatic conditions; the stress of installation; and
the stress of daily operation.
Further, the Cell 48 liner system will be placed upon a foundation or base capable of supporting
the liner and resisting pressure gradients above and below the liner to prevent failure of the liner
due to settlement, compression, or uplift.
Finally, the Cell 48 liner system will cover all surrounding earth likely to be in contact with the
wastes or leachate.
The Cell 48 liner system will be virtually identical to the Cell 4A liner system, which has
previously been reviewed and approved by the Executive Secretary (URS 2009). The physical,
chemical and radiological nature of the tailings to be disposed of in Cell 48 will not be
significantly different from the tailings to be disposed of in Cell 4A.
37
Cell48 Environmentat n)t and License Amendment Request O
,of"* ruoruorron *rOor, VNIJS
FINDING:
The information contained in the proposed engineering design and construction specifications,
and the Cell 48 Environmental Report and other relevant documents the Applicant has submitted
indicate that the requirements of UAC R313-24-4 that invokes the requirernent 10CFR40,
Appendix A, Criterion 5A(2) have been met.
38
Cell48 Environmertd R";t and License Amendment Request
Safety Evaluation
10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 5A(4): PREVENT OVERTOPPING
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the followine requirement from 10CFR40. Appendh A. Criterion 5A(4):
"A surface impoundment must be designed, constructed, maintained, and operated to prevent
overtopping resulting from normal or abnormal operations, overfilling, wind and wave actions,
rainfall, or run-on; from malfunctions of level controllers, alarms, and other equipment; and
from human error."
SAFETY EVALUATION:
On September 17,2008, the Executive Secretary authorized the use of the relined Tailings Cell
4A. The relining was completed in accordance with the previously approved Cell 4,{ Lining
System Design Report. A copy of the approval is included in Attachment D. The approval also
included the Cell 4A Best Available Technology, Operations and Maintenance Plan which
included a calculation for measuring the acceptable freeboard. A minimum freeboard of 3.0 feet
is specified based on State of Utah regulation, and the Plan also includes a provision for an
annual re-calculation of the Cell 4A freeboard based on area and elevation of tailings sands.
Freeboard limits for Cell 1 and Cell 3 (Cell 2 is currently full and does not have a pond area)
were initially set on the basis of the 1990 UMETCO Minerals Drainage Report, and approved by
NRC License Amendment20, to SUA-1358, on March 1, 1990. The authorizatron referred to
design documents, questions and responses during the review of the design. The authorizatron
also set maximum solution elevations for Cell 1, Cell 3 and Cell 4,A.. The maximum elevations
for Cell 3 and Cell 44 were later modified by the Executive Secretary, by interim variance, to
take into account changes in available storage volumes. See the letter dated October 9, 2A08
from the Licensee to the Executive Secretary, and the Executive Secretary's response of
November 20, 2008. Copies of those letters are attached as Attachment F to the Licensee's
responses to Round 2 interrogatories.
Parts I.D.2 and LD.6 of the Permit provide that under no circumstances shall the freeboard be
less than 3 feet in tailings cells 1, 3, and 4A. Likewise Part I.D.13 of the proposed Permit
mandates an equal freeboard requirement for Cell 48. Cell 2 is filled with tailings solids, has an
interim cover, and does not contain a pool area. In addition, freeboard limits have been
calculated with an adequate level of protection against overtopping resulting from normal or
abnormal operations, overfilling, wind and wave actions, rainfall, run-on, malfunctions of level
controllers, alarms, and other equipment and from human error. Freeboard limits are set out in
License Condition 10.3 and in the Cell4,A. BAT, Monitoring, Operations and Maintenance Plan.
License Condition 10.3.C prohibits the Licensee from discharging of any surface water,
stormwater or wastewater from Cells 3, 4A, and 48 other than through an Executive Secretary
authorized spillway structure. Currently, the approved Cell 48 design has no spillway for release
of such water from that impoundment to nearby adjoining native grades and elevations.
Consequently, Cell 48 is designed to retain all surface and stormwater contributions from all
39
Cell48 Environmenrot n)rt and License Amendment Requesl O
Safety Evaluation Report
contributing upgradient locations. The restrictions in License Conditions 10.3.A and C do notapply to solutions that are pumped from time to time from one cell to another for operational
purposes or to manage freeboard requirernents.
Further, Part I.D'3(c) of the Ground Water Discharge Permit provides that upon closure of anytailings cell, the Permittee shall ensure that the maximum elevation of the tailings waste solids
does not exceed the top of the flexible membrane liner in the cell.
A letter dated August 7, 2009 from the Licensee to the Division, also addresses questionsrelating to the Design Report and presents cell capacity calculations for Cell 48 as they relate tothe freeboard requirement for Cell48 (DUSA 2009d).
FINDING:
The Division has modified the License to reference Cell 48 in License Condition 10.3. ThatLicense Condition has also been modified to require that the discharge of any surface water,stormwater, or wastewater from Cells 3, 4A, and 48 shall only be through an ExecutiveSecretary authorized spillway structure. This condition is designed to ensure that all surfacewater / stormwater runoff that drains to areas occupied by Cells 3, 44, and 48, and all process
waters associated with the operation of Cells 3,4A, and 48, be contained within these thrle cellswithout overtopping, unless, in the future, if construction of a new cell were to be autho ized,
discharge from Cell 48 to that cell would be approved to occur, but only through an F,xecutive
Secretary-authorized spillway structure. This condition behooves the iir.nr.. take action toassure that water does not overtop the specified tailings cell dikes, by constructing diversion
channels or other means, such as pumping between cells, as needed.
The information contained in the Cell 48 Environmental Report and other relevant documentsthe Applicant has submitted, in combination with the modified License condition, indicate thatthe requirements of UAC R313-24-4 that invokes the requirements contained in 10CFR40,Appendix A, Criterion 5(A4) will yet be satisfied prior to placing Cell48 into service.
40
Cell 48 Environmertd Rtt and License Amendment Request
btv Evaluation
10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 5A(5): DIKES
REGULATORY BASIS:
R313-the foliwhnn dikes are used to form the surface impoundment, the dikes must be designed, constructed,
and maintained with sfficient structural integrity to prevent massive failure of the dikes. In
ensuring structural integrity, it must not be presumed that the liner system will function without
'leaknge during the active life of the impoundment."
SAFETY EVALUATION:
Refer to 10CFR4 0.26(C)(2)-02: General License. All dikes used to form Cell 48 have been
designed and will be maintained and monitored to verify that they maintain sufficient structural
integrity to prevent massive failure of the dikes. Division review has found the engineering
desrgn and construction specifications for Cell 48 to be acceptable (URS 2009). Through
issuance of this SER, the proposed License and Permit, and related public participation, the
Division intends on approving the Cell 48 design.
In a related effort, the Licensee is currently in preparation of an infiltration and transport
modeling report under the requirements of Part I.H.2 of the Permit. Division review of this
future reporf may result in additional changes to the cover system design for all tailings cells at
the site.
FINDING:
The Division has incorporated a new License condition (Condition 11.8) to require that the
Licensee submit a Movement (Displacement) Monitoring Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)
by December 1,2010, for Executive Secretary review and approval, to describe methods for
monitoring the dikes for movement and submittal of monitoring results to the Division. This
change tJ the License combined with information contained in the Cell 48 Environmental
Report and other relevant documents the Licensee has submitted, indicate that the requirements
of URC R3l3-24-4 that invokes the requirement 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 5A(5) will yet
be satisfied, as they involve Cell48.
41
Cell48 Environmenrot firt and License Amendment Reques, O
,of"rr rroruorron OrOrr, tN[S
10cFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 6(t): covER AND cLosuRE AT END oFMILLING OPERATIONS
REGULATORY BASIS:
R313-from I
"In disposing of waste byproduct material, licensees shall place an eiithen ,oi"4o, "pprouraalternative) over tailings or wastes at the end of milling operations and shall close tii waste
disposal area in accordance with a design which provides reasonable qssurance of control of
radiological hazards to (i) be ffictivefor 1,000 years, to the extent reasonably achievable, ani,
in any case, for at least 200 years, and (ii) limit releases of radon-222 from uranium byproductmaterials, and radon-220 from thorium byproduct materials, to the atmospher" to oi not to
exceed an average release rate of 20 picocuries per square meter per second (pCi/m2s) to the
extent practicable throughout the ffictive design life determined pursuant to (t)(i) of this
Criterion. In computing required tailings cover thiclmesses, rnoisture in soils in exciss of
amounts found norrnally in similar soils in similar circumstances may not be considered, Direit
gamma exposure from the tailings or wastes should be reduced to background levels. The effectsof any thin synthetic layer may not be taken into account in determining the calculated iadon
exhalation level. If non-soil materials are proposed as cover materials, ii must be demonstrated
that these materials will not crack or degrade by dffirential settlement, weathering, or other
mechanism, over long-term intervals."
SAFETY EVALUATION:
The Division will require that the Licensee submit an updated Reclamation plan, and Revised
Specifications for Reclamation (required by new License Condition 9.1l) providing information
demonstrating that an adequate Reclamation Plan and adequate financial surety are in place
before it grants permission for the Licensee to use Cell 48 in support of operations. In u purull"l,but related effort, the Licensee is in the process of preparing an infiltration and tiansport
modeling report under the requirements of Part I.H.2 of the Permit. Division review of this
future report may result in changes / refinements to the final cover system design for all tailings
cells at the site.
Refer also to the evaluation under UAC R3l3-24-3D: Environmental Analysis - Long-Term
Impacts (refer to pages 13 through l5 above).
FINDING:
The Division will require that the Licensee submit an updated Reclamation plan, and Revised
Specifications for Reclamation, for Cell 48, and receive Executive Secretary approval before
Cell 48 is placed into service. This requirement in License Condition 9.11, combined with theinformation contained in the Cell 48 Environmental Report and other relevant documents theApplicant has submitted, and with the requirement by the Division that the Licensee
subsequently submit a revised, final Reclamation Plan and Revised Specifications for
Reclamation that describes the final cover design selected for implementation at the Mill
42
Cell48 Environmerrot nD, and License Amendment Request
S afe ty Ev a luati o n Rep o r t
Facility, indicate that the requirements of UAC P.3l3-24-4 that invokes the requirements contained
in 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(1) will yet be satisfied, prior to placing Cell 48 into
service.
43
Cell48 Enuironmewot A)t and License Amendment Requesl O unsS afe ty Ev a luatio n Rep o r t
l0cFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 6(2): vERIFT EFFECTIVENESs oF FINALRADON BARRIER
REGULATORY BASIS:
:"As soon as reasonably achievable after emplacement of the final a;r;, t, li*it *lr^rt ,f
radon-222 from uranium byproduct material and prior to placement of erosion protection
barriers or otherfeatures necessaryfor long-term control of the tailings, thL licensee ihall veriyythrough appropriate testing and analysis that the design and construction of the final radl"nbarrier is effective in limiting releases of radon-222 to a level not exceiding-27 pCi/m2s
averaged over the entire pile or impoundment using the procedures described in qO CfA part 61,
appendix B, Method I15, or another method of verifi.cation approved by the Executive Sicretary
as being at least as effective in demonstrating the effectiveness of the/inat radon baryier,',
SAFETY EVALUATION:
As discussed in Section 2.4.1 of the DUSA December 23,2009 Response to Interrogatories onthe Cell 48 ER, in the November 24,2009 Reclamation Plan submittal (DUSA zbO9b;, the
Licensee presents a plan for reclamation of the site, as it exists today, prior to the construction ofCell 48' The Reclamation Plan will be further revised to incorporaie the addition of Cell 48prior to acceptance and authorization for use of Cell 48 by the Division, see proposed License
Condition 9.1 1. Additional future changes to the Reclamation Plan may be made after Division
review and approval of an infiltration and transport study (the "Infiltration Study") of the tailings
cover and re-design of the cover for better performancr, *iri.h is currently in progress.
The current tailings cover design proposed by the Licensee, and included as Appendix D to theNovember 24,2009 Reclamation Plan submittal (DUSA 2009b), is currently under Division
review. This version of the Plan includes an analysis of radon attenuation characteristics of the
cover, which appears to be designed to satisfu all radon emission standards. Section 3.3,2.1 of
said Reclamation Plan describes the modeling that was performed to demonstrate that the currenttailings cover design at Cells 1,2,3, and 4A will meet these regulatory criteria. At some future
date, the Executive Secretary will complete review of the November 24,2OOg Reclamation plan
as a part of the License Renewal Application process. In this process it will be the burden ofboth the Licensee and the Executive Secretary to determine ii any changes to cover system
design and/or construction specifications satisfy all radon emission standards.
As required by UAC R3l3-24-4 [0 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(2)], as soon asreasonably achievable after emplacement of the final cover over Cell 48, and prioito placementof erosion protection barriers or other features necessary for long-term contiol of the tailings,DUSA will verify through appropriate testing and analysis that the design and construction of thefinal radon barrier is effective in limiting releases of radon-222 to a level not exceeding 20q91-", averaged over the entire pile or impoundment using the procedures described in 40CFR Part 61, Appendix B, Method 115, or another method of verification approved by the
lowin from
44
Cell48 Environmer*t n}n and License Amendment Request
Safety Evaluation Report
Executive Secretary as being at least as effective in demonstrating the effectiveness of the final
radon barrier.
FINDING:
The Division will require the Licensee to submit an updated Reclamation Plan, and Revised
Specifications for Reclamation for Cell48, and receive approval thereof before Cell48 is placed
into service. Other changes to the Reclamation Plan may be made after Division review of the
November 24, 2OOg submittal, as a part of the License rertewal process. Ultimately, the
requirement to report the effectiveness of the radon barrier can only be satisfied once it is
constructed and its effectiveness measured, which is not at question in this amendment request
for construction of Cell48.
The information contained in the Cell 48 Environmental Report and other relevant documents
the Applicant has submitted, in combination with the above requirement, indicate that the
requirements of UAC R3l3-24-4 that invokes the requirernents contained in 10CFR40, Appendix
A, Criterion 4 will yet be satisfied, as they involve Cell 48.
45
Cell 48 Environmental n)t and License Amendment Request a
,ofrr, Uuorrorron O"ror, fJNlJS
10cFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 6(3): PHASED EMPLACEMENT oF FINAL
RADON BARRIER
REGULATORY BASIS:
invok
"Wen phased emplacement of the /inal radon barrier is included in the applicable reclamation
plan, the verification of radon-222 release rates required in paragraph (2) of this criterion must
be conducted for each portion of the pile or impoundment as the final radon baruier for that
portion is emplaced."
SAFETY EVALUATION:
The Licensee provided information that the final reclamation of the tailings cells is planned as a
phased approach. The timing of placement of the final cover over the platform fill is based on thephysical condition of the tailings cell and management's decision on overall long range mill
operations and economics. Final Cell 48 cover design will be evaluated as a part of the revised
Reclamation Plan required by proposed License Condition 9.1 1.
The Licensee also stated that per 40 CFR Part 192 the EPA requires that a "uranium tailings
cover be designed to produce reasonable assurance that the radon-222 release rate would not
exceed 20 pCilm'/sec for a period of 1,000 years to the extent reasonably achievable and in any
case for at least 200 years when averaged over the disposal area over at least a one year period"
(NRC, 1989). NRC regulations presented in 10CFR Part 40 (incorporated by reference into UAC
R313-24-4) also restrict radon flux to less than 20 pCrlm2lsec.
The Licensee also provided a description of the modeling that was performed to demonstrate that
the current tailings cover design will meet these regulatory criteria as described in Section
3.3.2.1 of the November 24,2009 Reclamation Plan submittal (DUSA 2009b), which is currently
under Division review. Section 3.3.2.2 of said Reclamation Plan also sets out actual radon flux
moasurements through the temporary cover for Cells 2 and 3 from 2004 through 2008. Radon
flux rates over those years have all been lower than the regulatory standard, based solely on the
interim random fill cover that has been placed over portions of those cells. Despite these
promising recent radon measurements, it is unknown if the soil and moisfure characteristics
found in the existing Cell 2 and 3 temporary cover will be representative of long-term
performance of the final cover system.
The Licensee also stated that a revised cover design for the Mill's tailings cells is currently being
developed. The Licensee indicated that the revised cover design evaluation will include a
demonstration that the revised cover design will also satisfu the regulatory radon emission
standards for the facility.
The Licensee has indicated that when the maximum amount of tailings has been placed in Cell
48, all the free water will be evaporated or pumped from the cell and the tailings will be graded
46
Cell48 Environmerrot nD, and License Amendment Request
Safety Evaluation Report
to ensure that the final tailings elevations and contours conform to the approved design. The
initial layer of the reclamation cap, the platform fill, will be installed over the contoured tailings.
This activity may take place in increments as distinct portions of the cell are filled, and therefore
may take several years to be fully complete, depending on the mill's operating schedule.
If the mill were operated at full capacity, the Licensee has indicated that Cell 48 could be filled
in 3 to 3.5 years. Realistically the Cell 48 operational period will be somewhat longer, as a
portion of the tailings from mill operations will also be placed in Cell 4,A.. The active cells will
be operated to maximize evaporation potential, while also bringing partial areas of a cell up to
final grade as rapidly as possible in order to reduce radon emanation by placing the platform fill
as soon as possible. The purposes of the platform fill are to minimize the amount of radon
emanating from the tailings; to minimize the potential for windblown tailings, and to place a
surcharge on the tailings to aid in dewatering. As platform fill is placed, settlement monitors will
be installed to record the consolidation and settlement of the tailings. A Standard Operating
Procedure (SOP) for this work is now required under new License Condition 11.7, which will
need to be submitted to the Executive Secretary on or before December 1, 2010.
The Licensee stated that once the cell is filled and the free water has been evaporated or pumped
from the cell, and the platform fill has been placed over the entire area, the slimes drain system
will be actively pumped to remove as much solution as possible from the tailings sands and
slimes. Dewatering of the tailings will allow the tailings sands and slimes to consolidate,
reducing the potential differential settlement after final cover placement, and reducing the
potential for liquefaction of the tailings during possible seismic events. The slimes drain design
and dewatering modeling is presented in the Revised Design Report, Appendix D (DUSA
2009a).
Based on calculations provided by the Licensee, the time required to dewater Tailings Cell 48,
once the slimes drain pumping has started, and maintain a steady-state maximum head of L0 feet
in the tailings (as measured from the lowest point of upper flexible membrane liner) is about 5.5
years or less. Once the satisfactory degree of dewatering has been achieved and the settlement
monitors are showing little or no consolidation, the final layers of the reclamation cap can be
placed. The Licensee has indicated that placement of the final layers of cap material should take
less than one year.
FINDING:
The Division will incorporate a new license condition (Condition 9.11) to ensure that the existing
Reclamation Plan (Revision 3.0) is revised to incorporate cover design requirements for Cell 48
that are similar to those already approved for Cell 4A.. This revision will be named as Revision
3.2. As a part of the on-going License Renewal Application review process, the Division will
examine the November 24,2009 Reclamation Plan submittal (DUSA 2009b) to determine if it is
adequate. If additional requirements are found to be necessary, the final Reclamation Plan may
be modified at a future date. This requirement, combined with the information contained in the
Cell 48 Environmental Report and other relevant documents the Applicant has submitted,
indicate that the requirements of UAC P.3l3-24-4 that invokes the requirements contained
47
Cell48 Environmenrot firt and License Arnendment Request a
safety Evatuation Report ruest J IIRS
10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(3) have been met or will yet be satisfied, as they involve Cell
48.
48
Cell48 Environmenrot n"?n and License Amendment Request
S afe ty Ev a luatio n Repo r t
10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 6(4): REPORT RADON BARRIER
EFFECTIVENESS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the followins requirement from 10CFR40. Appendix A. Criterion 6(4):
"Within ninety days of the completion of all testing and analysis relevant to the required
veri,fication in paragraphs (2) and (3) of L0CFR40, Aooendix A, Criterion 6, the uranium mill
licensee shall report to the Executive Secretary the results detailing the actions taken to verify
that levels of release of radon-222 do not exceed 20 pCi/m2s when averaged over the entire pile
or impoundment. The licensee shall maintain records until termination of the license
documenting the source of input parameters including the results of all measurements on which
they are based, the calculations and/or analytical methods used to derive values for input
parameters, and the procedure used to determine compliance. These records shall be kept in a
form suitable for transfer to the custodial agency at the time of transfer of the site to DOE or a
Statefor long-term care if requested."
SAFETY EVALUATION:
As required by UAC R3l3-24-4 [10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(4)], within ninety
days of the completion of all testing and analysis relevant to the required verification in
paragraphs (2) and (3) of 10 CFR Part40, Appendix A, Criterion 6, the Licensee will report to
the Executive Secretary the results detailing the actions taken to verify that levels of radon-222
released from the closed embankment do not exceed 20 pCilm2s when averaged over the entire
pile or impoundment. The Licensee will maintain records until termination of the License
documenting the source of input parameters including the results of all measurements on which
they are based, the calculations and/or analytical methods used to derive values for input
parameters, and the procedure used to determine compliance. These records will be kept in a
form suitable for transfer to the custodial agency at the time of transfer of the site to the DOE or
the State for long-term care, if requested.
FINDING:
The Division will require that the Licensee submit an updated Reclamation Plan, and Revised
Specifications for Reclamation (License Condition 9.11), and that this plan be approved by the
Division before Cell 48 is placed into service. The information contained in the Cell 48
Environmental Report and other relevant documents the Licensee has submitted indicate that the
requirements of UAC Pi3l3-24-4 that invokes the requirement 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion
6(a) will yet be satisfied, as they involve Cell 48. The requirement to report the effectiveness of
the radon barrier will need to be satisfied once it is constructed and its effectiveness measured.
The Division will review the revised, final Reclamation Plan for Cell 48 to ensure that the
information needed to satisfy UAC R3l3-24-4, which invokes the requirement from 10CFR40,
Appendix A, Criterion 6(4), is included and is appropriate and complete. Reasonable assurances
have been provided in previous analyses that effective radon barriers can be constructed and
49
Cell 48 Environmental R;rt and License Amendment Reques, O
commitments made to report the measured effectiveness of such a barrier. Nothing done or left
undone at this stage of the Cell 48 life cycle will preclude satisffing this requirement.
Evaluation Report
50
Cell48 Environmenrot n"i, and License Amendment Request
Safety Evaluation Report
10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 6(5): ELEVATED RADIUM
CONCENTRATIONS IN COVER MATERIALS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the followine requirement from 10CFR40. Appendix A. Criterion 6(.5):
"Near surface cover materials (i.e., within the top three meters) may not include waste or rock
that contains eleyated levels of radium; soils used for nedr surface cover must be essentially the
same, asfar as radioactivity is concerned, as that of surrounding surfoce soils. This is to ensure
that surface radon exhalation is not significantly above background because of the cover
material itself"
SAFETY EVALUATION:
The Licensee indicated that the construction of Cell 48 will generate approximately 680,000
cubic yards of soil and clay, and 790,000 cubic yards of rock. Cell 48 reclamation requirements
are estimated to be 410,000 cubic yards of soil and rock,68,000 cubic yards of clay, and 35,000
cubic yards of rip rap (DUSA 2009c). The Licensee also stated (DUSA 2009c) that the required
amount of cover materials for Cell 48 can easily be met from material generated during
construction or from off site locations. This conclusion is reasonable, given the amount of
property that is currently controlled by the Licensee that is not located outside of the tailings
management cells area.
The Licensee also provided information that all cover materials are native soils and rock
generated from the construction of the tailings cells or from off-site borrow locations. The
Licensee also stated that radium concentration of the cover materials will be at naturally-
occurring levels, and are, by definition, at background levels. These earthen materials will have
background concentrations of radium due to the fact that they will have been excavated from
natural sources on site. Stockpiles of these on-site stored materials will be surveyed for possible
contamination from any windblown or other contamination from ongoing mill operations on site.
Any found contamination would be removed and disposed of in the tailings cells prior to use for
the cover system (per Section3.2.3 the November 24,2009 Reclamation Plan submittal (DUSA
2009b), currently under Division review. Due to these precautions, radium concentrations of
earthen materials planned to be used in constructing the Cell 48 cover system will not exceed
background levels for the vicinity of the mill.
FINDING
The Division will require the Licensee to submit an updated Reclamation Plan, and Revised
Specifications for Reclamation for Cell 48, for approval by the Executive Secretary before Cell
48 is placed into service. Other changes to the Reclamation Plan, and the associated
Specifications for Reclamation, may come about as part of an ongoing License Renewal process.
This requirement, combined with the information contained in the Cell48 Environmental Report
and other relevant documents the Applicant has submitted, indicate that the requirements of
5l
Cell48 Environrnenot nlt and License Amendment Request a
Safety Evaluation Report
UAC R3l3-24-4 that invokes the requirements contained in I0CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(5)
will yet be satisfied, as they involve Cell 48.
52
Cell 48 Environmenrot n}r, and License Amendment Request
S ofn ty Ev a luati o n Rep o rt
10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 6(6): CONCENTRATIONS OF
RADIONUCLIDES OTHER THAN RADIUM IN SOIL
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the followine requirement from 10CFR40. Appendix A. Criterion 6(6):
"The design requirements in this criterion for longevity and control of radon releases apply to
any portion of a licensed and/or disposal site unless such portion contains a concentration of
radium in land, averaged over areas of 100 square meters, which, as a result of byproduct
material, does not exceed the background level by more than: (i) 5 picocuries per gram (pci/g)
of radium-226, or, in the case of thorium byproduct material, radium-228, averaged over the
first 15 centimeters (cm) below the surface, and (iil 15 pCi/g of radium-226, or, in the case of
thorium byproduct material, radium-228, averaged over lS-cm thick layers more than 15 cm
below the surface.
Byproduct material containing concentrdtions of radionuclides other than radium in soil, and
surface activity on remaining structures, must not result in a total ffictive dose equivalent
(TEDE) exceeding the dose from cleanup of radium contaminated soil to the above standard
(benchmark dose), and must be at levels which are as low as is reasonably achievable. If more
than one residual radionuclide is present in the same L)0-square-meter area, the sum of the
ratios for each radionuclide of concentration present to the concentration limit will not exceed
"1" (unity). A calculation of the potential peak annual TEDE within 1000 years to the average
member of the critical group that would result from applying the radium standard (not including
radon) on the site must be submitted for approval. Tlte use of decommissioning plans with
benchmark doses which exceed 100 mrem/yr, before application of ALARA, requires the
approval of the ... (Executive Secretary) after consideration of the recommendation of the staff of
the Executive Secretary. This requirement for dose criteria does not apply to sites that have
decommissioning plans for soil and structures approved before June I l, 1999."
SAFETY EVALUATION:
The equivalent non-radium soil concentration requirements are set out in Section 3,2.3.2 of
Revision 3.0 of the Reclamation Plan (IUC, 2000), in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 of Attachment A
thereto, in Section 3.2.3.2 of the November 24, 2009 Reclamation Plan submittal (DUSA
2009b), and Sections 3.2 and 3.3 of Attachment A thereto. NRC approved Revision 3.0 of the
Reclamation Plan on July 21, 2000. This version was later revised by the Division in August,
2008 during approval of Cell 4A (UDRC 2008c), and it is currently in force. The November 24,
2009 Reclamation Plan (DUSA 2009b) is currently under Division review.
Section 3.3.3 of Attachment A to the November 24,2009 Reclamation Plan submittal requires
and describes how all areas contaminated through process activities or windblown contamination
from the tailings areas will be remediated to meet applicable cleanup criteria for Ra-226,Th-230
and natural uranium. Section 3.3.3 further provides that contaminated areas will be remediated
such that the residual radionuclides remaining on the site, that are distinguishable from
background, will not result in a dose that is greater than that which would result from the radium
53
Celt 48 Environmertot nlt and License Amendment Request (a
Safety Evaluation Report
soil standard, as required by UAC R313-24-4 [0 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(6)]. The
procedures to be followed in taking the required surveys, including final surveys within specific
l0-m by 10-m grids, are set out in Sections 3.3.3, 3.3.4, and 3.3.5 of Attachment A to the
November 24,2009 Reclamation Plan submittal.
As provided in the November 24,2009 Reclamation Plan submittal, at the time of site closure,
the Licensee will determine the potential peak annual total effective dose equivalent ("TEDE")
within 1,000 years to the average member of the critical goup that would result from applying
the radium standard (not including radon) on the site. This determination will be documented
and submitted to the Executive Secretary for approval, as required by UAC R313-24-4 [10 CFR
Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(6)1.
These final site closure standards and procedures do not currently apply directly to tailings
contained within any of the tailings management (impoundment) cells, which will be capped in
place, including proposed Cell 48. Instead they will apply to all areas impacted by the tailings
cells at the time of site closure, including Cell 48.
FINDING:
The Division will require the Licensee to submit an updated Reclamation Plan, and Revised
Specifications for Reclamation for Cell 48 (License Condition 9.ll), which will require
Executive Secretary approval prior to placing Cell 48 into service. Appropriate and required
supporting analyses and calculations may be required of the Licensee as part of an ongoing
License Renewal Application review process. Any improvements to the Reclamation Plan,
determined by the Executive Secretary, in the future, will be required during the License
Renewal process. Said changes needed to the Reclamation Plan will be submitted for Executive
Secretary approval thereafter.
This requirement, combined with the information contained in the Cell 48 Environmental Report
and other relevant documents the Applicant has submitted indicate that the requirements of UAC
R3l3-24-4 that invokes the requirements contained in 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(6) will
yet be satisfied, as they involve Cell 48.
54
Cell48 Environmertd R";t and License Amendment Request
S afe ty Ev a luatio n Rep o rt
10cFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 6(7): NONRADIOLOGICAL HAZARDS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the followins requirement from 10CFR40. Appendix A. Criterion 6(7):
"The licensee shall also address the nonradiological hazards associated with the wastes in
planning and implementing closure. The licensee shall ensure that disposal areas are closed in a
manner that minimizes the need for further maintenance. To the extent necessary to prevent
threats to human health and the environment, the licensee shall control, minimize, or eliminate
post-closure escape of nonradiological hazardous constituents, leachate, contaminated
rainwater, or waste decomposition products to the ground or surface waters or to the
atmosphere."
SAFETY EVALUATION:
The liner system for proposed Cell 48 is virtually identical to the liner system for Cell 4A, which
has previously been approved by the Executive Secretary (UDRC 2008b), and which has been
designed to hold tailings generated during mill operations during the operational life of Cell 48,
including all nonradiological constituents. In the event of failure in the liner system, a leak
detection system is provided in the Cell 48 design. Further, nearby groundwater monitoring
wells will be present to detect any potential leakage including three new required groundwater
monitoring wells (see the evaluation under "I0CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 7: Preoperational
and Operational Monitoring" section below. As a result, the Ground Water Discharge Permit
addresses the radiological and nonradiologqcal hazNds associated with the mill tailings to be
disposed of in the tailings cells, including proposed Cell48.
No nonradiological emissions of any significance from the tailings cells are expected when the
cells are in operation. Following closure, additional isolation of the tailings should further reduce
nonradiological emissions.
FINDING:
The information contained in the Cell 48 engineering design, Environmental Report and other
relevant documents the Licensee has submitted, indicate that the requirements of UAC R3t3-24-
4that invokes the requirernent 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(7) will yet be met, as they
involve Cell48.
55
Cell48 Environmerrot n)rt and License Amendment Request O
Saf"ty Evaluation Report
I0CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 64(1): COMPLETION oF FINAL RADON
BARRIER
REGULATORY BASIS:
IOCFR
"For impoundments containing uranium byproduct materials, the final radon batier must be
completed as expeditiously as practicable considering technological feasibility after the pile or
impoundment ceases operation in accordance with a written, Executive Secretary-approved
reclamation plan. (The term as expeditiously as practicable considering technologicat feasibility
as speci/ically defined in the Introduction of this appendix includes factors beyond the control of
the licensee.) Deadlines for completion of the final radon barrier and, tf applicable, the
following interim milestones must be established as a condition of the individual license:
windblown tailings retrieval and placement on the pile and interim stabilization (including
dewatering or the removal of freestanding liquids and recontouring). The placement of erosioi
protection barriers or other features necessary for longlerm control of the tailings must also be
completed in a timely manner in accordance with a written, Executive Secretary-approved
reclamation plan."
SAFETY EVALUATION:
Refer to the evaluation under 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(3): Phased Emplacement of
Final Radon Barrier, refer pages 46 through 48,above.
FINDING:
The Division will require the Licensee to submit an updated Reclamation Plan, and Revised
Specifications for Reclamation for Cell 48, and secure approval thereof before Cell 48 is put
into service. Other required supporting analyses and calculations may be required by ihe
Executive Secretary as part of the ongoing License Renewal Application process, as an
outgrowth of the review of the November 24, 2A09 Reclamation Plan (DUSA 2009b). This
requirement, combined with the information contained in the Cell 48 Environmental Report and
other relevant documents the Applicant has submitted indicate that the requirements of UAC
R3l3-24'4 that invokes the requirsments contained in l0CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 64(l) will
yet be satisfied, as they involve Cell 48.
56
Cell48 Environme.td Rr;t and License Amendment Request
Sqfey Evaluation Report
10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 7: PREOPERATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL
MONITORING PROGRAMS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the followine requirement from I0CFR40. Appendix A. Criterion 7: '7l
least one full year prior to any major site construction, a preopercttional monitoring program
must be conducted to provide complete baseline data on a milling site and its environs.
Throughout the construction and operating phases of the mill, an operational monitoring
program must be conducted to measure or evaluate compliance with applicable standards and
regulations; to evaluate performance of control systems and procedures; to evaluate
environmental impacts of operation; and to detect potential longlerm fficts."
SAFETY EVALUATION:
An extensive preoperational monitoring program was performed at the mill site prior to initial
construction and licensing of the mill, in order to provide complete baseline data on the mill site
and its environs, as required by 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 7. The results of this
preoperational monitoring program are described in detail in the 1978 ER (D&M, 1978) and the
FES (NRC teTe).
Operational monitoring programs have been conducted at the mill throughout the construction
and operating phases of the mill, to measure and evaluate compliance with applicable standards
and regulations; to evaluate performance of control systems and procedures; to evaluate
environmental impacts of operation; and to detect potential long-term effects. The mill's
operational monitoring programs are described in Section 2.3 of the November 24, 2009
Reclamation Plan submittal (DUSA 2009b). Monitoring results are reported in the mill's Semi
Annual Effluent Reports and Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Reports and other reports filed
with the Executive Secretary.
Baseline data for new groundwater monitoring wells that will be installed in connection with the
construction of Cell 48 will be obtained over the first eight quarters after installation of the wells
(proposed Permit, Part I.H.7). Because any such monitoring wells will likely be installed in one
or more of the Cell 48 dikes, being the downgradient locations closest to the cell, it will not be
possible to install and monitor such wells prior to construction of Cell4B. However, Cell48 will
have a BAT and state-of-the-practice leak detection system that will be monitored regularly once
the cell begins to be used to support operations. As a result, there is reasonable assurance that the
groundwater at any newly installed wells will not have been impacted by Cell 48 operations
during the eight-quarter baseline sampling period.
Preoperational environmental monitoring was described in Sections 2.5, 2.4 and 2.9 of the 1992
License Renewal Application. Evidence of NRC approval is contained in License Condition 9.3.
In addition, the Division will include a new condition in the Permit, requiring that a minimum of
three additional downgradient groundwater monitoring wells be installed in conjunction with the
construction of Cell 48. Two compliance monitoring wells (MW-33 and MW-34) will be
57
Cell48 Environmentat n)t and License Amendment Reques, O
Safety Evaluation Report
installed as described in new Permit condition I.H.6. A condition has also been added to the
Permit to require that a plan for approval be submitted to the Executive Secretary for installation
of the third compliance monitoring well (MW-35). After approval, the location of the third well
(MW-35) will be determined after consideration of hydrogeologic information acquired through
installation and development of wells MW-33 and MW-34 and other related field investigations
(Permit Part I.H.6). The condition also requires that a monitoring well As-Built report for Wells
MW-33 and MW-3 4, and for Well MW-35, be submitted within 45 calendar days of completing
well installations to document said well construction for Executive Secretary approval (Permit
Part LH.6).
FINDING:
The Division will incorporate new Permit conditions (Permit Parts I.E.l(b)(3), I.H.6, and I.H.7)
requiring that a minimum of three additional downgradient groundwater monitoring wells be
installed, with two of these wells required to be installed prior to placement of tailings or
wastewater in Tailings Cell48, and that within 45 calendar days of completing well installation,
a monitoring well As-Built report be submitted for these two wells to document said well
construction for Executive Secretary approval, and that a background groundwater quality report
be submitted to the Division after completion of 8 quarters of sampling and analysis in these
wells. The conditions will also require that a plan for installing the third new groundwater
monitoring well be submitted to the Division before Cell 48 is placed into service. These Permit
changes, combined with the information contained in the Cell 48 Environmental Report and
other relevant documents the Licensee has submitted, indicate that the requirements of UAC
R3l3-24-4,that invokes requirements contained in l0CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 7, will yet be
satisfied, by complying with the Permit conditions, as they involve Cell 48.
58
Cell48 Environmentrt nfit and License Amendment Request
Safety Evaluation R
IOCFR4O, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 8: EFFLUENT CONTROL DURING
OPERATIONS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the followine requirement from 10CFR40. Appendix A. Criterion 8:
"Milling operations must be conducted so that all airborne effluent releases are reduced to levels
as low as is reasonably achievable. The primary means of accomplishing this must be by means
of emission controls. Institutional controls, such as extending the site boundary and exclusion
area, may be employed to ensure that offsite exposure limits are met, but only after all
practicable measures have been taken to control emissions at the sotffce. Notwithstanding the
existence of individual dose standards, strict control of emissions is necessary to assuri that
population exposures are reduced to the maximum extent reasonably achievable and to avoid
site contamination. The greatest potential sources of offsite radiation exposure (aside fromradon exposure) are dusting from dry surfaces of the tailings disposal area not covered by
tailings solution and emissions from yellowcake drying and packaging operations. During
operations and prior to closure, radiation doses from radon emissions from surface
impoundments of uranium or thorium byproduct materials must be kept as low as is reasonably
achievable.
Checlcc must be made and logged hourly of all parameters (e.g., dffirential pressures and
scrubber water flow rates) that determine the fficiency of yellowcake stack emission control
equipment operation. The licensee shall retain each log as a record for three years after the last
entry in the log is made. It must be determined whether or not conditions are within a range
prescribed to ensure that the equipment is operating consistently near peak fficiency; corrective
action must be taken when performance is outside of prescribed ranges. Effluent control devices
must be operative at all times during drying and packnging operations and whenever air is
exhausting from the yellowcake stack. Drying and packaging operations must terminate when
controls are inoperative. Wen checla indicate the equipment is not operating within the range
prescribed for peak efficiency, actions must be taken to restore parameters to the prescribed
range. Wen this cannot be done without shutdown and repairs, drying and packaging
operations must cease as soon as practicable. Opercitions may not be restarted after cessation
due to offnormal performance until needed corrective actions have been identified and
implemented. All these cessations, coruective actions, and restarts must be reported to the
Executive Secretary, in writing, within ten days of the subsequent restart.
To control dusting from tailings, that portion not covered by standing liquids must be wetted or
chemically stabilized to prevent or minimize blowing and dusting to the maximum extent
reasonably achievable. This requirement may be relaxed if tailings are effectively shelteredfrom
wind, such as may be the case where they are disposed of below grade and the tailings surface is
not exposed to wind. Consideration must be given in planning tailings disposal programs to
methods which would allow phased covering and reclamation of tailings impoundments because
this will help in controlling particulate and radon emissions during operation. To control
dusting from dffise sources, such as tailings and ore pads where automatic controls do not
s9
Cell48 Environmentot n)t and License Amendment Request a
S a/b ty Ev a luati on Rep o rt
apply, operators shall develop written operating procedures specifying the methods of control
which will be utilized.
Milling operations producing or involving thorium byproduct material must be conducted in
such a rnanner as to provide reasonable assurance that the annual dose equivalent does not
exceed 25 millirems to the whole body, 75 millirems to the thyroid, and 25 millirems to any other
organ of any member of the public as a result of exposures to the planned discharge of
radioactive materials, radon-220 and its daughters excepted, to the general environment.
Uranium and thorium byproduct materials must be managed so as to conform to the applicable
provisions of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 440, "Ore Mining and Dressing
Point Source Category: Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standqrds, subpart C, Uraniurn, Radium, and Yanadium Ores Subcategory," as codified on
January l, 1983."
SAFETY EVALUATION:
This topic deals primarily with mill operations generally and the mill's tailings system as a whole
and not specifically to Cell 48. Refer to Section 5.0 of the 2007 License Renewal Application
and Section 4.0 of the 1992 License Renewal Application for a description of the mill's emission
and dust control procedures. Evidence of NRC approval of such procedures is contained in
License Condition 9.3,
FINDING:
The information contained in the Cell 48 Environmental Report and other relevant documents
the Applicant has submitted, indicate that the requirements of UAC R3l3-24-4 that invokes the
requirunents contained in 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 8 will yet be satisfied, as they involve
Cell48.
60
Cell 48 Environmenrot nD, and License Amendment Request
S afe t! Ev a luation Rep o r t
1OCFR4O, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 8A: DAILY INSPECTIONS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the followine requirement from 10CFR40. Appendix A. Criterion 8A:
"Daily inspections of tailings or waste retention systems must be conducted by a qualified
engineer or scientist and documented. The licensee shall retain the documentation for each daily
inspection as a record for three years after the documentation is made. The Executive Secretary
must be immediately notified of any failure in a tailings or waste retention system that results in
a release of tailings or waste into unrestricted areas, or of any unusual conditions (conditions
not contemplated in the design of the retention system) that is not corrected could indicate the
potential or lead to failure of the system and result in a release of tailings or waste into
unrestricted areas."
SAFETY EVALUATION:
Refer to the evaluation presented under 10CFR40.26(C)(2): General License, (refer to pages 16
and 17, above).
FINDING:
The information contained in the Cell 48 Environmental Report and other relevant documents
the Applicant has submitted indicate that the requirements of UAC R3l3-24-4 that invokes the
requirements contained in 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 8A will yet be satisfied, as they
involve Cell48.
6l
cell48 Environmentot a)t and License Amendment Request O,ofr, Uuoruorron *"Oor, IfNIJS
1OCFR4O, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 9: FINANCIAL SURETY ARRANGEMENTS
REGULATORY BASIS:
from
"Financial surety arrangements must be established by each mill ipeiator prior n tn,
comrnencement of operations to assure that sfficient funds will be available to carry out the
decontamination and decommissioning of the mill and site and for the reclamatiin of anytailings or waste disposal areas. The amount offunds to be ensured by such surety aryangementsmust be based on Executive Secretary-approved cost estimates in a Executive Siretary-
approved plan for (l) decontamination and decommissioning of mill buildings and the millingsite to levels which allow unrestricted use of these areas upon decommissiining, and (2) thi
reclamation of tailings and/or waste areas in accordance with technical criteria delineated in
Section I of this Appendix. The licensee shall submit this plan in conjunction with an
environmental report that addresses the expected environmental impacts of the milling
operation, decommissioning and tailings reclamation, and evaluates alternatives for mitigating
these impacts. The surety must also cover the payment of the charge for longierm surveillanie
and control required by Criterion 10. In establishing specific surety aruangements, the licensee,s
cost estimates must take into account total costs that would be incurred if an independent
contractor were hired to pedorm the decommissioning and reclamation work. In order io avoid
unnecessary duplication and expense, the Executive Secretary may accept financial sureties that
have been consolidated with financial or surety arrangements established to meet requirements
of other Federal or state agencies and/or local governing bodies for such decommissioning,
decontamination, reclamation, and long-term site surveillance and control, provided suih
arrangements are considered adequate to satisfy these requirements and that the portion of the
surety which covers the decommissioning and reclamation of the mill, mill tailings siti and
associated areas, and the long-termfunding charge is clearly identified and commifi;dfor use in
accomplishing these activities. The licensee's surety mechanism witl be reviewed onnuilly by the
Executive Secretary to assure, that sfficient funds would be available for completion of the
reclamation plan if the work had to be pedormed by an independent contractor. The amoint of
surety liability should be adjusted to recognize any increases or decreases resulting frominflation, changes in engineering plans, activities pedormed, and any other conditions ffictingcosts. Regardless of whether reclamation is phased through the life of the operation otr takes
place at the end of operations, an appropriate portion of surety liability *uti b, retained until
final compliance with the reclamation plan is determined.
This will yield a surety that is at least sfficient at all times to cover the costs of
decommissioning and reclamation of the areas that are expected to be disturbed before the neit
license renewal. The term of the surety mechanism must be open ended, unless it can be
demonstrated that another arrangement would provide an equivalent level of assurance. This
assurLnce would be provided with q surety instrument which is written for a speci/ied period of
time (e.g., 5 years) yet which must be automatically renewed unless the sturety notifies th-e
beneficiary fthe Executive Secretary) and the principal (the licensee) some reasonable time (e.g.,
90 days) prior to the renewal date of their intention not to renew. In such a situation the surity
62
Cell48 Environmerrot nnQ, and Liicense Amendment Request
Safety Evaluation Report
requirement still exists and the licensee would be required to submit an acceptable replacement
turnty within a brief period of time to allow at least 60 days for the regulatory agency to collect.
Proof of forfeiture must not be necessary to collect the surety so that in the event that the
Itceisei "ould not provide an acceptable replacement surety within the required time, the surety
shall be automatically collected prior to its expiration. The conditions described above would
have to be clearly stated on any surety instrument which is not open-ended, and must be agreed
to by all parties. Financial surety arratngements generally acceptable to the Executive Secretary
are:
(a) Surety bonds;
(b) Cash deposits;
(c) Certificates of deposits;
(d) Deposits of government securities;
(e) Irrevocable letters or lines of credit; and
(fl Combinations of the above or such other types of arrangements as may be approved by the
ixecutive Secretary. However, self insurance, or any arrangement which essentially constitutes
self insurance (e.g., a contract with a State or Federal agency), will not satisfy the surety
requirement since this provides no additional assurance other than that which already exists
through licens e requirements."
SAFETY EVALUATION:
As required by License Condition 9.5, the mill has deposited
Secretary, consistent with UAC R3l3-24-4 (10 CFR Part 40,
a surety bond with the Executive
Appendix A, Criteria 9 and 10),
part!, for decommissioning and
mill's tailings or waste disposal
adequate to cover the estimated costs, accomplished by a third
decontamination of the mill and mill site; reclamation of the
areas; and the long-term surveillance fee'
The amount of the surety bond is currently $15,807,429, was approved by the Executive
Secretary on Decemb er 9,2009, and represents site conditions without Cell 48. Annual updates
to the surety amount, required by UAC R3l3-24-4 (10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criteria 9 and
10) are submitted for Executive Secretary for approval by March 4 of each year.
Prior to operation of Cell 48, and after approval of the revised Reclamation Plan, the reclamation
cost estimate will be updated to reflect the eventual closure of Cell 48. Thereafter, the surety
bond will be updated accordingly. The proposed License contains new requirements at
Conditions 9.5 and 9.11 to this effect. Further, changes in Condition 9.5 now prohibit the
Licensee from operating the facility without prior submittal of evidence of appropriate changes
to the surety amount, and Executive Secretary approval thereof'
In addition, the current surety amount ($15,807,429) does not include costs related to
groundwater restoration that might be required at the time of closure. Given that a chloroform
contaminant plume is now known to exist at the facility, and was caused by pre-construction and
63
Cell48 Environmentot n") and License Amendment Request O
Safety Evaluation Report
initial site operations related to 11e,(2) tailings disposal, it is appropriate for the Licensee to
include an allowance for chloroform groundwater remediation in the annual surety report to
include any activities and costs needed to meet the Criterion 9 requirernents, including:
"... l) decontamination and decommissioning of ... the milling site to levels which allow
unrestricted use of these areqs ... " and
" ... The amount of surety liability should be adjusted to recognize any increases or
decreases resulting from inflation, changes in engineering plans, activities performed,
and any other conditions affeeting costs."
As a result, it is the intent of the Division to require the Licensee to include a cost allowance for
chloroform groundwater remediation during the review process for the 2010 annual surety
report.
Refer also to evaluation under UAC R3l3-24-3D: Environmental Analysis - Long-Term
Impacts, as stated on Pages 13 through l5 above.
FINDING:
The Division will require, through a new License Condition (License Condition 9.11), that the
Licensee submit a revised Reclamation Plan, and revised Specifications for Reclamation for Cell
48, and obtain approval thereof, before Cell 48 is put into service. In addition, adequate
information for determining financial surety requirements for all tailings management cells,
including Cells 4,{ and 48, and any new features or facilities that are constructed in conjunction
with operation of Cells 4,A' and 4B will also be required. Said revised Reclamation Plan and
Specifications and surety for Cell 48 shall be approved by Executive Secretary before disposal
of any tailings or wastewater in Cell 48. The updated Reclamation Plan will revise both the
NRC- approved version of the Reclamation Plan (Revision 3.0) for Cells 1 ,2, and 3, and the
version approved by the Division in August, 2008, referred to as Revision 3.1 (see UDRC
2008c).
The new License Condition combined with the information contained in the Cell 4B
Environmental Report and other relevant documents the Applicant has submitted, indicate that
the requirements of UAC R313-24-4 that invokes the requirements contained in 10CFR40,
Appendix A, Criterion 9 will yet be satisfied, as they involve Cell 48.
64
Cetl48 Environmenrot nQrt and License Amendment Request
Safety Evaluation Report
10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 10: COSTS OF LONG-TERM SURVEILLAIICE
REGULATORX BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the followine requirement from 10CFR40. Appendix A. Criterion 10: "A
minimum charge of [$855,000 (2008 dollars)] to cover the costs of long-term surveillance must
be paid by each mill operator to the general treasury of the United States or to an appropriate
State agency prior to the termination of a uranium or thorium mill License.
If site surveillance or control requirements at a particular site are determined, on the basis of a
site-specific evaluation, to be significantly greater than those specified in Criterion 12 (e.g., if
fencing is determined to be necessary), variance in funding requirements may be specified by the
Executive Secretary. In any case, the total charge to cover the costs of long-term surveillance
must be such that, with an assumed 1 percent annual real interest rate, the collected funds will
yield interest in an amount sufficient to cover the annual costs of site surveillance. The total
charge will be adjusted annually prior to actual paynent to recognize inflation. The inflation rate
to be used is that indicated by the change in the Consumer Price tndex published by the U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics."
SAF'ETY EVALUATION:
The Long Term Surveillance Fund is specific to the entire site and is not designated for
individual features of the site. There will be no increase in the calculated amount of the fund
from the addition of Cell48.
FINDING:
The information contained in the Cell 48 Environmental Report and other relevant documents
the Applicant has submitted, indicate that the requirements of UAC R3L3-24-4 that invokes the
requirements contained in 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 10 have been satisfied, as they involve
Cell48.
65
Cell48 Environmentot n") and License Amendment Request O
Safety Evaluation Report
UAC R317-6-6.3: GROUND WATER DISCHARGE PERMIT APPLICATION
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R3l3-24-4 nvokes UAC R317-6 in lieu of 10CFR40 Appendix A, Criterion 5B(1) thru 5H,
Criterion 7A, and Criterion 13. In tum, UAC R3l7-6-6.3 outlines the content requirernents of a
State Ground Water Discharge Permit (Permit) application.
"(Jnless otherwise determined by the Executive Secretary, the application for a permit to discharge
wastes or pollutants to ground water shall include thefollowing complete information:
A. The name and address of the applicant and the name and address of the owner of the
facility if dffirent than the applicant. A corporate application must be signed by an fficer
of the corporation. The name and address of the contact, if dffirent than above, and
telephone numbers for all listed nqmes shall be included.
B. The legal location of thefacility by county, quarter-quarter section, township, and range.
C. The name of thefacility and the type offacility, including the expectedfacility life.
D. A plat map showing all water wells, including the statru and tne of each well, Drinking
Water source protection zones, topography, springs, water bodies, drainages, and man-
made structures within a one-mile radius of the discharge. The plat map must also show the
location and depth of existing or proposed wells to be used for monitoring ground water
quality. Identify any applicable Drinking Water source protection ordinances and their
impacts on the proposed permit.
E. Geologic, hydrologic, and agricultural description of the geographic area within a one-
mile radius of the point of discharge, including soil types, aquifers, ground water /low
direction, ground water quality, aquifer material, and well logs.
F. The We, source, and chemical, physical, radiological, and toxic characteristics of the
ffiuent or leachate to be discharged; the average and maximum daily amount of effluent or
leachate discharged (Wd), the discharge rate (gpm), and the expected concentrations of any
pollutant (m7/l) in each discharge or combination of discharges. If more than one discharge
point is used, informationfor each point must be given separately.
G. Inforrnation which shows that the discharge can be controlled and will not migrate into
or adversely affect the quality of any other waters of the state, including the applicable
sudace water quality standards, that the discharge is cornpatible with the receiving ground
water, and that the discharge will comply with the applicable class TDS limits, ground
water quality standards, class protection levels or an alternate concentration limit proposed
by thefacility.
H. For areas where the ground water has not been classified by the Board, information on
the quality of the receiving ground water sfficient to determine the applicable protection
levels.
66
Cetl48 Environmenrot n)rt and License Amendment Request
S afe ty Ev a luati on Rep o rt
I. A proposed sampling and analysis monitoring plan which conforms to EPA Guidancefor
Quality Assurance Project Plans, EPA QA/G-S (EPA/600/R-98/018, February 1998) and
includes a description, where appropriate, of thefollowing;
l. ground wdter monitoring to determine ground water Jlow direction and gradient,
background quality at the site, and the quality of ground water at the compliance
monitoring point;
2. installation, use and maintenance of monitoring devices;
3. description of the compliance monitoring area defined by the compliance
monitoring points including the dimensions and hydrologic and geologic data used
to determine the dimensions;
4. monitoring of the vadose zone;
5. measures to prevent ground water contamination after the cessation of operation,
inc luding pos t-operational monitoring ;
6. monitoring well construction and ground water sampling which conform where
applicable to the Handbook of Suggested Practices for Design and Installation of
Ground-Water Monitoring Wells (EPA/600/4-89/034, March 1991), ASTM
Standards on Ground Water and Vadose Investigations (1996), Practical Guide for
Ground llater Sampling EPA/600/2-85/104, Qt{ovember 1955) and RCM Ground
l|/ater Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance Document (1986), unless
otherwise specified by the Executive Secretary;
7. description and justification of parameters to be monitored;
8. quality assurance and control provisions for monitoring data.
J. The plans and specifications relating to construction, modification, and operation of
discharge systems.
K. The description of the ground water most likely to be affected by the discharge, including
water quality information of the receiving ground water prior to discharge, a description of
the aquifer in which the ground water occurs, the depth to the ground water, the saturated
thiclorcss,flow direction, porosity, hydraulic conductivity, andflow systems characteristics.
L. The compliance sampling planwhich in addition to the information specified in the above
item I includes, where app.ropriate, provisions for sampling of efrluent and for flow
monitoring in order to determine the volume and chemistry of the discharge onto or below
the surface of the ground and a plan for sampling compliance monitoring points and
appropriate nearby water wells. Sampling and analytical methods proposed in the
application must conform with the most appropriate methods specified in the foltowing
references unless otherwise speci/ied by the Executive Secretary:
1. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, twentieth
edition, 1998; Library of Congress catalogue number:1SB I. 0-87553-235-7.
67
Cell48 Environmertot nfil and License Amendment Request I
Safety Evaluation Report
2. E.P.A. Methods, Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, 1983;
Stock Number EPA-600/4-7 9 -0 2 0.
3. Techniques of Water Resource Investigations of the U.S. Geological Survey,
(1998); Book9.
4. Monitoring requirements in 40 CFR parts l4l and 142, 2000 ed., Prirnary
Drinking Water Regulations and 40 CFR parts 264 and 270, 2000 ed.
5. National Handbook of Recommended Methods for Water-Data Acquisition, GSA-
GS edition; Book 85 AD-2777, U.S. Government Printing Office Stock Number 024-
001-03489-1.
M. A description of theflooding potential of the discharge site, including the 110-year/lood
plain, and any applicableflood protection measures.
N. Contingency plan for regaining and maintaining compliance with the perrnit limits and
for reestablishing best available technology as defined in the permit.
O. Methods and procedures for inspections of the facility operations and for detecting
failure of the system.
P. For any existing facility, a coruective action plan or identification of other response
tneasures to be taken to remedy any violation of applicable ground water quality standards,
class TDS limits or permit limit established under R3I7-6-6.48. which has resulted from
discharges occurring prior to issuance of a ground water discharge permit.
Q. Other information required by the Executive Secretary.
R. All applications .for a groundwater discharge permit must be pedormed under the
direction, and bear the seal, ofa professional engineer or professional geologist.
S. A elosure and post closure management plan demonstrating measures to prevent ground
water contamination during the closure and post closure phases of an operation."
SAFETY EVALUATION:
As outlined above, ground water quality protection issues at uranium mills are managed by the
Division under the authority of the Utah Ground Water Quality Protection Regulations (UAC
R317-6) and the corresponding Permit. The original Permit was issued by the Division on
March 8, 2005, and has been modified several times since; the most recent being January 20,
2010. During these Permit actions, the Permittee has submitted a substantial amount of
additional hydrogeology and groundwater quality information, and additional requirements have
been implemented at the facility. These actions have improved site performance standards for
new construction and enhanced monitoring and reporting criteria. As a result, the Division
believes improved measures are in place for protection of local groundwater quality. Despite
these improvements, the Licensee was asked to provide additional geologic, hydrogeologic, and
groundwater related information during review of the Cell 48 application. A brief discussion of
that information follows.
68
Cell 48 Environmentd R;*t and License Amendment Request
Sofety Evaluation Report
The Licensee provided a Colorado Plateau geologic map and a map showing the geology of the
Mill site and surrounding areas found in the November 24,2009 Reclamation Plan submittal
(DUSA 2009b) (Figures 1.6.1 and 1.6.2, respectively). A figure showing the generalized
stratigraphy of the mill site was included as Figure 6 of the 2008 ER and Figure 1.5-1 of the
November 24,2009 Reclamation Plan submittal.
The Licensee provided a report, Site Hydrogeology and Estimation of Groundwater Travel
Times in the Perched Zone White Mesa Uranium Mill Site Near Blanding, Utah, as Appendix B
to the November 24,2009 Reclamation Plan submittal (DUSA 2009b), which includes updated
site information on site hydrology and hydrogeology.
In the Round 1 response, the Licensee assured that during the Cell 48 construction process that
the existing groundwater compliance monitoring wells would be preserved, because each
groundwater monitoring well at the mill site near Cell 48 would be protected by concrete
bollards that surround the well. Each post is a four inch metal pipe filled with concrete that is
sunk three feet into the ground and that protrudes three feet above the ground. Each post and the
monitoring well casing is painted red for easy visual identification. The Licensee states that if a
monitoring well is damaged, given the above protections, the Executive Secretary would be
notified, and the well would be repaired in accordance with a plan that would be submitted to the
Executive Secretary for approval and approved prior to commencement of repair.
The Licensee furnished well boring logs for wells MW-l, MW-2, MW-3, MW-4, MW-5, MW-
11, MW-12, MW-14, MW-15, MW-16, MW-17, MW-18, and MW-19, as Appendix A to the
Hydrological Evaluation of White Mesa Uranium Mill, July 1994, prepared by Titan
Environmental Corporation (the '1994 Titan Report").
The Licensee also provided lithologic and core logs for wells MW-3A, MW-23,MW-24, MW-
25, MW-27, MW-28, MW-29, MW-30 and MW-31 as Appendix A to the Report: Perched
Monitoring Well Installation and Testing at the White Mesa Uranium Mill April Through June
2005, August 3,2005, prepared by Hydro Geo Chem, lnc.
Also provided by the Licensee are the lithologic and core logs for wells MW-20, MW-21 and
MW-22 in a June 21,2001letter report from Hydro Geo Chem, Inc. (Hydro Geo Chem), which
is attachment A to Denison's J:une22,2001 letter to the Executive Secretary in response to the
Executive Secretary's request for additional site hydrology information. Lithologic and core logs
for wells TW4-4 and TW4-5 are included in an October 4,2000 report prepared by Hydro Geo
Chem, which has previously been submitted to the Executive Secretary.
The Applicant included geologic cross sections depicting the three-dimensional configuration of
the (geologic) contact between the Brushy Basin and the Burro Canyon formations representing
the area beneath and downgradient of the Cell 48 footprint (DUSA 2010b). The cross sections
depict the approximate configuration of the perched water zone in the cross sections. The
Applicant has also provided boring logs for Boring #19, MW-3A, MW-16, and MW-23, along
with angled subsurface boring logs for GH-94-1 , GH-94-2A, and GH-94-3. The Applicant
concluded that there was not sufficient data on the locations of, and angles of completion of, the
angled borings to allow them to be precisely placed on a map and therefore these were not used
in developing the cross sections.
69
Cell48 Environmentot nrl, and LicenseAmendment Request O
Safety Evaluation Report
In their response to Round I Interrogatories submitted relative to the Cell 48 Environmental
Report (DUSA 2009c), the Licensee also provided a letter, dated November 10, 2009, from
Hydro Geo Chem which indicated that the reported sub-horizontal, limonite-stained features
interpreted in the 1978 ER (D&M, 1978) as bedding plane fractures may not be actual fractures
but may represent structurally weaker zones along bedding planes that appear as partings in core
samples.
Hydro Geo Chem concluded, in the above-referenced report, that examination of core samples
collected during drilling of angle borings beneath tailings Cells 3 and 44, indicate that where
fractures were present in cores, they were cemented with gypsum. They indicated that open
fractures significant enough to impact groundwater movement in the perched zone were not
identified in that investigation. Hydro Geo Chem also concluded that no fractures were reported
in cores from MW-3A, MW-l6, or MW-23, the existing wells adjacent to or at the location of
proposed Cell 48. Hydro Geo Chem concluded that this makes it even less likely that potentially
undetected fractures could significantly affect subsurface fluid flow in the vicinity of proposed
Cell 48, and that, should the sub-horizontal features reported in the 1978 ER actually represent
fractures, their sub-horizontal nature would prevent them from acting as vertical conduits from
the tailing cell to the perched groundwater.
A Hydro Geo Chem letter report dated February 8, 2010 (an attachment to DUSA 2010a) also
provided additional information recommending the installation of Cell 48 monitoring wells
MW-33 and MW-34. These wells would be screened across the perched zone, and therefore,
their installation would provide data to better define the apparent ridge-like feature identified in
the top of the Brushy Basin, near MW-l6. In meetings with the Division on February 18, 2010,
the Applicant agreed to install three new wells, including a third monitoring well, MW-35,
adjacent to the western edge of Cell 48. The installation of MW-35 is intended to aid in further
defining the potential groundwater migration patterns downgradient of proposed Cell 48. The
Division has decided this third well is required.
The Licensee also provided information stating the design of Cell 48 and Cell 4A will be similar
and with be constructed with dual synthetic liners, a leak detection system between the synthetic
liners and a geosynthetic clay liner beneath the lowest synthetic liner. This liner system will be
overlain by a slimes drain system. The Licensee concluded that the cells are therefore designed
without any present, and therefore, no assumed future potential, points of discharge for effluents
or leachate from the cells.
FINDING:
The Division will incorporate a new Permit condition requiring that a minimum of three
additional downgradient groundwater monitoring wells be installed near Cell 48. Two of these
new wells (MW-33 and MW-34) must be installed and approved prior to use of Cell 48 (see new
Part LH.6). The new Permit condition also requires that the Licensee submit a plan for
installation of the third well (MW-35) prior to placement of tailings and wastewater in Cell 48.
For additional details see the Permit and attending Statement of Basis.
A condition will also be included in the forthcoming Permit to require the Licensee to conduct an
additional hydrogeologic investigation in the area to the west of the Cell 48 footprint area,
70
Cell48 Environmenro, Qort and License Amendmint Request
Safety Evaluation Report
extending to, and including existing seeps (e.g. Cottonwood Seep and Westwater Seep) and a
spring (e.g. Ruin, Spring) located west and southwest of the tailings management cells, and
submission by the Licensee of a report describing results of those hydrogeologic investigations
prior to placing Cell 48 into service (see new Part I.H.10). The investigation will be conducted
to verifu the relationship of the (geologic) contact between the Brushy Basin and the Burro
Canyon formations to the seeps and springs. The Division believes this geologic contact may
have significant impact on local groundwater flow directions, and location of potential points of
exposure of the public to possible groundwater contamination.
The changes to the Permit, combined with the information contained in the Cell 4B
Environmental Report and other relevant documents the Applicant has submitted, indicate that
the requirements of UAC R3t7-6-6.3 will yet be satisfied, as they involve Cell 4B.
71
Safety Evaluation R
cell48 Environmentat nt and License Amendment Request t
UAC R3l7-6-6.4: ISSUANCE OF DISCHARGE PERMIT
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes UAC R317-6-6.4(A) in lieu of comparable requirements in I0CFR40:
"A. The Executive Secretary may issue a ground water discharge permit for a new faciltty if the
Executive Secretary determines, after reviewing the information provided under R3l7-6-6.3,
that:
t. the applicant demonstrates that the applicable class TDS limits, ground water quality
standards protection levels, and permit limits established under R3l7-6-6.4E will be
met;
2. the monitoring plan, sampling and reporting requirements are adequate to determine
compliance with applicable requirements ;
3. the applicant is using best available technologt to minimize the discharge of any
pollutant; and
4. there is no impairment of present andfuture beneJicial uses of the ground waten "
SAFETY EVALUATION:
The Licensee provided information stating that the construction and operation of Cell 48 would
not create any new issues ofconcem over and above those considered and accepted for existing
licensed facilities at the mill. The physical, chemical and radiological make up of the tailings is
not expected to be significantly different from that of existing tailings or from the assumptions in
the previously issued Permit. Cell 48 will have a double liner/leak detection/slimes drain system
similar to that of Cell 44 that is designed not to release tailings solutions to the environment and
that the Division has already approved. The Licensee indicated that any releases at Cell 48 will
be detected by the LDS and groundwater monitoring programs and remediated before there
could be any impact on the public.
The Licensee also provided information in a Hydro Geo Chem letter dated February 12,2010,
discussing the inferred distribution of conglomeratic zones within the Dakota Formation, and
their inferred vertical and aerial extent of the elevated portion of the contact surface of the Burro
Canyon / Brushy Basin Formations on geologic cross sections that span the Cell 48 footprint
area.
Refer also to the evaluation under UAC R3l7-6-6.3: Ground Water Discharge Permit
Application, presented above.
FINDING:
The Division believes that the proposed engineering design and construction specifications for
Cell 48, along with the proposed Permit changes to address operational monitoring /
72
Cell 48 Environmentot fiort and License Amendment Request
S afn ty Ev a luat io n Rep o rt
maintenance, and groundwater monitoring satisfy the requirements of UAC R317-6-6.4(A). Foradditional information on these findings, please see the related Statement of Basis.
The Division will incorporate a new Permit condition requiring that a minimum of threeadditional downgradient groundwater monitoring wells be installed in conjunction with theconstruction of Cell 48 (see new Part I.H.6). For a further discussion of this provision, seeR317-6-6.3, Ground Water Discharge Permit Application, above.
A new condition will also be included in the Permit to require the Licensee to conduct anadditional hydrogeologic investigation in the area to the west of the Cell 48 footprint area,
extending to, and including existing seeps (Cottonwood Seep and Westwater Seep) and a spring(Ruin Spring) located west and southwest of the tailings management cells, and
-submission b!the Licensee of a report describing results of those hydrogeologic investiguiio6 prior to placin!Cell 48 into service (see new Part I.H.10). The investigation will be conducted to verify tGrelationship of the (geologic) contact between the Brushy Basin and the Burro Canyon
formations to the seeps and springs.
The changes to the Permit, in combination with the information contained in the Cell 48Environmental Report and other relevant documents the Applicant has submitted, indicate that
the requirements of UAC P.3l7-6-6.4 will yet be satisfied, as they involve Cell48.
73
Cell48 Environmertot n ) and License Amendment Request O
Sa/bty Evaluation Report
UAC R3 I 7 -6-6.9 t PERMIT COMPLIAI\CE MONITORING
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R3l3-24-4 invokes U,tC R3-17-6-6.9 in lieu of co{nparable requirsments in 10CFR40:
"A. Ground Water Monitoring
The Executive Secretary may include in a ground water discharge pennit requirements for ground
water monitoring, and may specify compliance monitoring points where the applicable class TDS
limits, groundwater quality standards, protection levels or other perrnit limits are to be met.
The Executive Secretary will determine the location of the compliance monitoring point based upon
the hydrologt, type of pollutants, and other foctors that may affict the ground water quality. The
distance to the compliance monitoring points must be as close as practicable to the point of
discharge. The compliance monitoring point shall not be beyond the property boundaries of the
permitted facility without written agreement of the affected property owners and approval by the
Executive Secretary.
B. P erformance Monitoring
The Executive Secretary rnay include in a ground water discharge permit requirements for
monitoring performance of best available technologt standards."
SAFETY EVALUATION:
The Licensee has provided updated site information on site hydrology (HGCI 2009), a copy of
which is included as Appendix B to the November 24,2009 Reclamation Plan submittal (DUSA
2009b). The HGCI 2009 report provides information demonstrating that the proposed
groundwater monitoring system, including the three new monitoring wells (MW-33, MW-34,
and MW-35) proposed to be installed downgradient of Cell 48, together with existing wells
MW-14 and MW-15, and other downgradient monitoring wells, are sufficient in number, are
properly located, and are properly designed to provide reasonable assurance of providing timely,
reliable, and representative data for detecting potential future releases from the tailings
management cells, including Cell 48.
With regards to requirernents for monitoring BAT performance, certain other changes have been
made to the Permit to require revision of the existing Cell 4,A' Monitoring, Operations and
Maintenance Plan to address needs for Cell 48. Refer also to the evaluation under UAC R3l7-6-
6.3: Ground Water Discharge Permit Application.
FINDING:
The Division will incorporate a new Permit provision requiring that a minimum of three
additional downgradient groundwater monitoring wells be installed in connection with the
74
Cell48 Environmentat nQrt and License Amendment Request
Evaluation Report
construction and use of Cell 48 (see new Part I.H.6). For a further discussion of this provision,
see R317-6-6.3, Ground Water Discharge Permit Application, above.
A condition will also be included in the forthcoming Permit modification to require the Licenseeto conduct an additional hydrogeologic investigation in the area to the west of the Cell 45l
footprint area, extending to, and including existing seeps (Cottonwood Seep and Westwater
Seep) and a spring (Ruin Spring) located west and southwest of the tailings management cells,and submission by the Licensee of a report describing results of those hydrogeologic
investigations prior to placing Cell 48 into service (see new Part I.H.l0). The investigaiion *itt
be conducted to verify the relationship of the (geologic) contact between the Brushy-Basin and
the Burro Canyon formations to the seeps and springs.
The changes to the Permit, in combination with the information contained in the Cell 48
Environmental Report and other relevant documents the Licensee has submitted, indicate that the
requirements of UAC R317-6-6.9 will yet be satisfied, by complying with Permit conditions, as
they involve Cell48.
75
Cell48 Environmentot nr) and License Amendment Request a
Safety Evaluation Report
UAC R317-6-6.10: BACKGROUND WATER QUALITY DETERMINATION
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R3l3-24-4 invokes UAC R317-6-6.10 in lieu of comparable requirernents in 10CFR40:
"A. Background water quality contaminant concentrations shall be determined and specified in the
ground water discharge permit. The determination of background concentration shall take into
account any degradation.
B. Background water quality contaminant concentrations may be determined froru existing
information orfrom data collected by the permit applicant. Existing information shall be used, tf the
permit applicant demonstrates that the quality of the information and its means of collection are
adequate to determine background water quality. If existing information is not adequate to
determine background water quality, the permit applicant shall submit a plan to determine
background water quality to the Executive Secretary for approval prior to data collection. One or
more up-gradient, lateral hydraulically equivalent point, or other monitoring wells as approved by
the Executive Secretary may be requiredfor each potential discharge site.
C. After a permit has been issued, permittee shall continue to monitor background water quality
contaminant concentrations in order to determine natural/luctuations in concentrations. Applicable
up-gradient, and on-site ground water monitoring data shall be included in the ground water
quality permit monitoring report."
SAFETY EVALUATION:
The Executive Secretary's determinations regarding background groundwater quality for the site
are set out in the 2009 Statement of Basis (UDRC 2009), and is based on previous work by both
DUSA and the URS Corporation. These background reports were also considered in light of
ground water geochemical and isotopic santpling and analysis performed by the University of
Utah Department of Geology and Geophysics (Hurst 2008). Those documents and other
documents considered by the Executive Secretary in determining background groundwater
quality at the site are listed in the References section of the September, 2009 Statement of Basis
(UDRC 200e).
New groundwater monitoring wells required to be installed in conjunction with the construction
and use of Cell 48 have yet to be installed; therefore, background ground water quality in these
wells has yet to be determined by the Executive Secretary. New conditions (Parts LH.6 and
I.H.7) have been added to the Permit to require the installation of these three wells and require
submittal of a background report after 8 quarters of sampling and analysis of these new wells.
FINDING:
The new provisions included in the Permit, and the information contained in the Cell 48
Environmental Report and other relevant documents the Applicant has submitted, indicate that
76
Cell48 Environmenrot ntt and License Amendment Request
Safety Evaluation Report
the requirements of UAC R3l3 -24-4 (that invokes UAC R3l7-6-6.10) will yet be satisfied, as they
involve Cell48.
77
Cell48 Environmentat Rn and License Amendment Request t
Safety Evaluation Report
UAC R317-6-6.122 SUBMISSION OF DATA
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes UAC R3l7-6-6.12 in lieu of comparable requirernents in I0CFR40:
"A. Laboratory Analyses
All laboratory analysis of samples collected to determine compliance with these regulations shall be
performed in accordance with standard procedures by the Utah Division of Laboratory Services or
by a laboratory certified by the Utah Department of Health.
B. Field Analyses
Allfield analyses to detennine compliance with these regulations sha,ll be conducted in accordance
with standard procedures specifi.ed in R3l7-6-6.3.L.
C. Periodic Submission of Monitoring Reports
Results obtained pursuant to any monitoring requirements in the discharge permit and the methods
used to obtain these results shall be periodically reported to the Executive Secretary according to
the schedule specified in the ground water discharge permit.
SAFETY EVALUATION:
These requirements are met by the Ground Water Quality Assurance Plan required under Part
I.E.1(a) of the Permit. This plan was originally submitted to the Division on May 19,2005 and
has been revised and approved several times since; with the most recent approved version,
Revision 5.0, approved on February 23,2010. Section I.F.l of the Permittee's Ground Water
Discharge Permit requires that groundwater monitoring reports be submitted to the Executive
Secretary quarterly and that such reports include field data sheets and laboratory results.
FINDINGZ
The information contained in the Cell 48 Environmental
the Applicant has submitted indicate that the requirements
R317-6-6.12) will yet be met, as they involve Cell48.
Report and other relevant documents
of UAC R3l3-24-4 (that invokes UAC
78
unsCett 48 Environmerro, firt and License Amendment Reques,
'Safety Evaluation Repo rt
UAC R317-6-6.13: REPORTING oF MECHANICAL PROBLEMS oR DTSCHARGE
SYSTEM FAILURES
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes UAC R3l7-6-6.13 in lieu of comparable requirements in 10CFR40:
"The permittee shall notify the Executive Secretary within 24 hours of the discovery of any
mechanical or discharge systemfailures that could ffict the chemical characteristics or volume of
the discharge. A written statement confirming the oral report shall be submitted to the Executiie
Secretary withinfive days of thefailure."
SAFETY EVALUATION:
The Permit requires such notices to be given in the event of failure to maintain discharge
minimization technology ('DMT") or BAT standards required under the Permit (part I.G.3) ;dif the facility is otherwise out of compliance (Part I.G.4 and Part II.1). The permit has been
revised to incorporate Cell48 into this set of requirements.
FINDING:
The information contained in the Cell 48 Environmental Report and other relevant documents
the Applicant has submitted indicate that the requirements of UAC R3l3-24-4 (that invokes UAC
R317-6-6.13) will yet be satisfied, as far they involve Cell 48.
79
cell48 Environmentat ne{D and License Amendment Request O
UAC R317-6-6.14: CORRECTION OF ADVERSE EFFECTS
REGULATORY BASIS:
,,A. If monitoring or testing ind.icates that the permit conditions may be or are being violated by
groird water discharge operations or the faciliQ is otherwise in an out-of-compliance status, the
"permittee shall promptly make correctioni to the system to coruect all violations of the discharge
permit.
B. The permittee, operator, or owner may be required to take corrective action as described in
Ri17-6-6.5 if a pollutant concentration has exceeded a permit limit."
SAFETY EVALUATION:
pmt LG.4 of the permit specifies the actions that must be taken by the Licensee / Permittee in
the event of a violation of a condition of the Permit. The Permit has been revised to incorporate
Cell48 into this set of requirements'
FINDING:
The information contained in the Cell 48 Environmental Report and other relevant documents
the Licensee has submitted, indicate that the requirements of UAC R3l3-24-4 (that invokes UAC
R317-6-6.14) will yet be satisfied, as they involve Cell 48'
80
cell48 Environmenro, Qrt and License Amendment Request
Safety Evaluation Report lrltil
UAC R317-6-6.16: OUT-OF-COMPLIANCE STATUS
REGULATORY BASIS:
:
" A. Acce lerated Monitoring for probabre out-of-compliance status
If the ualue of a single analysis of any compliance parameter in any compliance monitoring sampleexceeds an applicable permit limit, thefacility shall;
I. Notify the Executive Secretary inwritingwithin 30 days of receipt of data;
2. Immediately -initiate monthly sampling if the value exceeds both the backgroundconcentration of the pollutant by two standard deviations and an applicable prr*lt h*it,unless the Executive Secretary determines that other periodic sampliig is appropriate, for aperiod of two months or until the compliance status of thefacility ianEe determined.
B. Violation of Permit Limits
Out-of-compliance status exis ts when ;
l. The valuefor two consecutive samplesfrom a compliance monitoring point exceeds;
a. one or more permit limits; and
b. the background concentration for that pollutant by two standard deviations (thestandard deviation and background (mean) being ialculated using values for'theground water pollutant at that compliance monitoring point) ,n'inx the existingpermit limit was derived from the background pollutait concentration plus rw-ostandard deviations ; or
2' The concentration value of any pollutant in two or more consecutive samples isstatistically significantly higher than the applicable permit limit. The statistical significanceshall be determined using the statistical methodi described in Statisticat lrtetlias yorEvaluating Ground Lf/ater Monitoring Datafrom Hazardous Waste Facilities, Vol. 53, No.196 of the Federal Register, Oct. ll, 1988 and supplemental guidance in Guidance ForData Quality As s ess ment (EpA/600/R-g 6/0g4 January I g g s).
c. Failure to Maintain Best Available Technologt Required by permit
l. Permittee to Provide Information
In the event that the_permittee fails to maintain best available technologt or otherwise failsto meet best available technologlt standards as required by the permil, the permittee shallsubmit to the Executive Secretary a notification oid desciption-of the failuie according toRi17-6-6.13. Notification shall be given orally within 24 iours oithe iermittee,s discolveryof the failure of best available technology, antd shall be followed""p b; written notificatioi,
81
Cell48 Environmentat ne) and License Amendment Request O
Safety Evaluation Report
including the information necessary to make a determination under R317-6-6.16.C.2, within
five days of the permittee's discovery of thefailure of best available technologlt."
SAFETY EVALUATION:
The determination of when the mill is out of compliance and the procedures to be followed once
the facility is so determined are set out in Part I.G of the Permit, which incorporates the
requirements of UAC R317-6-6.16, and has since original issuance of the Permit in March,2005.
See also the evaluation under UAC R3l7-6-6.13: Reporting of Mechanical Pfoblems or
Discharge System Failures, above. The Permit has been revised to incorporate Cell 48 into this
set of requirements.
FINDING:
The information contained in the Cell 48 Environmental Report and other relevant documents
the Applicant has submitted indicate that the requirements of UAC R3l3-24-4 (that invokes UAC
R317-6-6.16) will yet be satisfied, as they involve Cell 48.
82
Cetl48 Environmenro, Qort and License Amendment Request
S afe ty Ev a lua ti o n Rep o rt
UAC R:i17-6-6.172 PROCEDURE WHEN A FACILITY IS OUT-OF-COMPLIANCE
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R3l3-24-4 invokes UAC R317-6-6.17 in lieu of comparable requirements in 10CFR40:
"A. If afacility is out of compliance thefollowing is required:
L The permittee shall noffi the Executive Secretary of the out of compliance status within
24 hours after detection of that status, followed by a written notice within 5 days of the
detection.
2. The permittee shall initiate monthly sampling, unless the Executive Secretary determines
that other periodic sampling is appropriate, until thefacility is brought into compliance.
3. Ihe permittee shall prepare and submit within 30 days to the Executive Secretary a plan
and time schedule for assessment of the source, extent and potential dispersion of the
contamination, and an evaluation of potential remedial action to restore and maintain
ground water quality and insure that permit limits will not be exceeded at the compliance
monitoring point and best available technology will be reestablished.
4. The Executive Secretary may require immediate implementation of the contingency plan
submitted with the original ground water discharge permit in order to regain and maintain
compliance with the permit limit standards at the compliance monitoring point or to
reestablish best available technologt as defined in the permit.
5. Where it is infeasible to re-establish BAT as defined in the permit, the permittee may
propose an alternative BATfor approval by the Executive Secretary."
SAFETY EVALUATION:
The determination of when the mill is out of compliance and the procedures to be followed once
the facility is so determined are set out in Part I.G of the Permit, which incorporates the
requirements of UAC R317-6-6.17. The Permit has been revised to incorporate Cell 48 into this
set of requirernents.
FINDING:
The information contained in the Cell 4B Environmental Report and other relevant documents
the Licensee has submitted, indicate that the requirements of UAC R3l3-24-4 (that invokes UAC
R317-6-6.17), will yet be satisfied, as they involve Cell 48.
83
Cell48 Environmentot nr) and License Amendment Request t
Safety Evaluation Repo rt
REFERENCES:
Abrahamson200T
Brumbaugh 2005
Campbell2002
Campbell2003
Campbell 2007
D&M 1978
DOE 1989
DUSA 2007a
DUSA 2OO7b
DUSA 2008a
Abrahamson, N.A. and Silva, w .J., NGA Ground Motion Relations for the
Geometric Mean Horizontal component of Peak and spectra Ground
Motion Parameters: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research center
Report 2007.
Brumbaugh, D.S. Active Faulting and Seismicity in a Prefractured
Terrain: Grand canyon, Aizona. Bulletin of the seismological Society of
America 95: l56l-1566, 2005.
Campbell, K.W., Prediction of Strong Ground Motion lJsing The Hybrid
Empirical Method: Example Application to Eastern North America,
submitted to Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,2002.
Camp6ell, K.W., and Bozorgnia, Y. (2003) tJpdated near-Source Ground-
Motion (Attenuation) Relations for the Horizontal and Vertical
components of Peak Ground Acceleration and Acceleration Response
spectra. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 93(1): 314-331,
2003.
campbell, K.w. and Bozorgnia, Y. NGA Ground Motion Relations for the
Geometric Mean Horizontal component of Peak and spectra Ground
Motion Parameters. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research center
Report 2007102,246 p,2007 .
Dames & Moore, "white Mesa Uranium Project, San Juan county, utah"
Environmental Report prepared for Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., January
30, 1978.
U.S. Department of Energy, Technical Approach Document: Revision II,
uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Projecf. washington D.c., 1989.
Denison Mines (USA) Corp., Environmental Report in Support of the
License Renewal Applicatibn, State of (Jtah Radioactive Materials License
No. UT(900479, February 28,2007 .
Denison Mines (usA) corp., License Renewal Application; state of utah
Radioactive Materials License UT I 9 004 7 g, February ZB, ZOO7,
Denison Mines (USA) Corp., Environmental Report In Support of
construction Tailings Cell48, Wite Mesa (Jranium Mill, Blanding, (Jtah,
April 30,2008.
Denison Mines (USA) Co.p., Denison Mines (DUSA) Corp.; State of Utah
11e.(2) Byproduct Material License No.UTI900479; White Mesa Mill,
Blanding, Utah; License Condition Number 9.5 - Revised Surety Update
DUSA 2OO8b
84
Cell48 Environmenro, trt and License Amendment Request
Safety Evaluation Repo rt
DUSA 2009a
DUSA 2OO9b
DUSA 2009c
DUSA 2OO9d
DUSA 2009e
DUSA 2OO9f
DUSA 2010a
DUSA 2O1Ob
Cell 4A; Response to Requestfor Information, June 23, 2008, , July 25,
2008.
Denison Mines (USA) Corp., (Revised) Cell48 Design Report, White
Mesa Mill, Blanding, Utah. January 2009, included as an attachment to
"Cell48 Lining System Design Report, Response to Division of Radiation
Control ("DRC") Requestfor Additional Information - Round I
Interrogatory, Cell 48 Design", Letter dated January 9,2009, from Harold
R. Roberts to Dane Finerfrock, Division of Radiation Control. URL:
http://www.radiationcontrol.utah.gov/Uranium-Mil1s/IUC/cell4b/design4b
.htm
Denison Mines (USA) Corp., Reclamation Plan, Rev.
Mill, Blanding, Utah, November 2009.
White Mesa
Denison Mines (USA) Corp., White Mesa Uranium Mill - [Response toJ
First Round of Interrogatories from Amendment Request and
Environmental Report for Cel I 4 B, Decertber 23, 2009 .
Denison Mines (USA) Co.p., (Revised) Cell 4B Design Report, White
Mesa Mill, Blanding, Utah. August 2009, "Cell48 Lining System Design
Report, Response to Division of Radiation Control ("DRC") Requestfor
Additional Information - Round 2 Interrogatory, Cell48 Design", Letter
dated August 7,2009, from Harold R. Roberts to Dane Finerfrock,
Division of Radiation Control. URL:
http://www.radiationcontrol.utah.govAJranium-Mills/IUC/cell4b/design4b
.htm
Denison Mines (USA) Co.p., White Mesa Uranium Mill - Renewal
Application; State of Utah Groundwater Discharge Permit No.
UGW3 7 0004, Septemb er l, 2009.
Denison Mines (USA) Co.p., Cell48 Lining System Design Report,
Response to DRC Requestfor Additional Information - Round 3
Interrogatory, Cell 48 Design, September 11, 2009. URL:
http://www.radiationcontrol.utah.govAJranium_Mills/IUC/cell4b/design4b
.htm
Denison Mines (USA) Co.p., White Mesa Uranium Mill - Second Round
of Interrogatories from Review of License Amendment Request and
Environmental Report for Ce I I 4 B, F ebruary 8, 20 I 0.
Denison Mines (USA) Co.p., Wite Mesa Uranium Mill - Second Round
of Interrogatories from Review of License Amendment Request and
Environmental Reportfor Cell48 [Supplemental Response to Rd 2
Interrogatoriesl, Febru ary 12, 20 1 0.
85
Cell 48 Environmentat net and License Amendment Request I
Safety Evaluation Report
DUSA 2010c
Frankel 1995
Frankel 1996
Geosyntec 2007
Geosyntec 2009
HGCI2OOS
HGCI2OO9
Hurst 2008
IUC 2OOO
Knight 1999
Denison Mines (USA) Corp., Wite Mesa Uranium Mill - First Round of
Interrogatories From Review of License Amendment Request and
Environmental Report For Cell 48 - Supplemental Response, Jantary 22,
2010.
Frankel, A., Mapping Seismic Hazard in the Central and Eastern United
States, Seismological Research Letters 66@): 8-21, 1995
Frankel, A., Mueller, C., Barnard, T., Perkins, D., Leyendecker, E.,
Dickman, N., Hanson, S., and Hopper, M, National Seismic Hazard Maps
- Documentation June 1996. USGS Open-File Report 96-532,1996.
Geosyntec Consultants, Cell 48 Design Report White Mesa Mill,
Blanding, Utah, December, 2007. URL:
http;//www.radiationcontrol.utah.govAJranium_Mills/IUC/cell4b/design4b
.htm
Geosyntec Consultants, Technical Specifications for the Construction of
Cell 48 Lining System, White Mesa Mill, Blanding, Utah, January 2009.
Hydro Geo Chem Inc., "Site Hydrogeology, Estimation Of Groundwater
Travel Times And Recommended Additional Monitoring Wells For
Proposed Tailings Cell4b White Mesa Uranium Mill Site Near Blanding,
Utah" (included as Appendix A to the Environmental Report), report dated
January 8,2008.
HydroGeoChem Inc, Site Hydrogeology and Estirnation of Groundwater
Travel Times in the Perched Zone, Wite Mesa Uranium Mill Site Near
Blanding, Utah, August 27,2009.
Hurst, T. Grant, and D. Kip Solomon, Summary of Work Completed, Data
Results, Interpretations and Recommendations for the July 2007 Sampling
Event at the Denison Mines, USA, Wite Mesa Uranium Mill Neqr
Blanding Utqh, Uniyersity of Utah, May 2008
International Uranium Corp., Reclamation Plan, Rev. 3, White Mesa Mill,
Blanding, Utah. Source Material Reference No. SUA-I358. Docket No.
40-8681. Revision 3.0. July 2000.
Knight and Piesold, Probabilistic Seisrnic Hazard Assessment.
Memorandum to Harold R. Roberts, by lfuight Piesold dated Apil23,
1999.
MFG, lnc.,ll'hite Mesa Uranium Facility Cell 48 Seismic Study,
Blanding, Utah. Letter Report to Harold R. Roberts, by MFG, Inc. dated
November 27,2006.
MFG 2006
86
Cell48 Environmenrot firt and License Amendment Reques,
'Safety Evaluation Report
NRC I994
NRC 1979
NRC 1997
NRC 2OO2
NRC 2OO7
Senes 2008
SSHAC 1997
Tetra Tech 2010
UDRC 1999
UDRC 2008a
UDRC 2OO8b
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Standard Review Planfor the
Review of a License Applicationfor a Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Disposal Facility,NUREG-l200 Rev. 3, Aprjl 1994.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Final Environmental Statement
Related to the Operation of White Mesa Uranium Project, Energy Fuels
Nuclear, 1nc., NUREG-0556, May 1979,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1997, "Environmental Assessment
for Renewal of Source Materials License No. SUA-I358", prepared by
USNRC in support of license renewal application, Docket No. 40-8681,
February 1997.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Design of Erosion Protectionfor
Long-Term Stabilization. NUREG-1623. Final Report. T.L. Johnson
September 2002. U.S. N.R.C., Washington DC, 1988.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRC, A Performance-Based
Approach to Define the Site-Specific Earthquake Ground Motion.
Regulatory Guide 1.208. March 2007.
Senes Consultants Limited, Proposed Development of New Tailings Cell
4bfor the White Mesa Uranium Mill, Apil2008.
Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee, Recommendations for
Probabilistic Seismic hazard Analysis-Guidance on Uncertainty and Use
of Experts: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NUREGICR-6327,
variously p aginated, 1 9 9 7
Tetra Tech, Technical Memorandum - White Mesa Uranium Facility,
Seismic Study Updatefor a Proposal Cell, Blanding, Utah, February 3,
2010, Attachment E to DUSA 2010a.
Division of Radiation Control, Notice of Violation and Ground Water
Corrective Action Order, Docket UGW20-01, letter from William J.
Sinclair (UDRC) to David Fridenlund [International Uranium Corporation
(USA)1, August 23, 1999.
Utah Division or Radiation Control, Cell4A BAT Monitoring, Operations
and Maintenance Plan, Denison, Rev.,l.3, September 16, 2008, l3 pp.
Utah Division or Radiation Control, Final Modified Groundwater Quality
Discharge Permit UGW370004 (Permit) and Public Participation
Summary (PPS) for DUSA Tailings Cell 4A: Permit UGW370004,March
14,2008 (Permit signed March 17,2008).
Utah Division or Radiation Control, July 25, 2008 DUSA 2008 Response
to Requestfor Information; June 2i, 2008 DRC Requestfor Information;
Annual Surety Updatefor the Wite Mesa Mill and Tailings Management
System, Radioactive Materials License No. UT1900479 Updated Surety
UDRC 2008c
81
Cell48 Environmentot nr) and License Amendment Request I
Safety Evaluation Report
UDRC 2OO9
UDRC 2010a
UDRC 2OTOb
URS 2OO8
URS 2OO9
ucw370004
UMETCO 1993
USGS 2OO2
USGS 2OO8
Wong 1989
Estimate, Revised Reclamation Plan Approval and Request for Evidence
of Surety, August 4,2008.
Utah Division of Radiation Control, Statement of Basis for a Uranium
Milling Facility South of Blanding, Utah, September 2009'
Utah Division of Radiation Control, Radioactive Materials License
UT 1 9 0 0 4 7 9, 2010, in Preparation.
Utah Division of Radiation Control, Groundwater Discharge Permit No.
UGW370004, Final Groundwater Discharge Permit issued to Denison
Mines (USA) Corp., January 20,2010.
URS Corporation, Completeness Review for the Revised Background
Groundwater Quality Report: Existing Wells for Denison Mines (USA)
Corporation's White Mesa Mill Site, San Juan County, Utah,
Memorandum from Robert Sobocinski and Brian Harper (URS) to Loren
Morton (Utah Division of Radiation Control), June 16,2008.
URS Corporation, Final Summary of Review and Recommendationfor
Acceptance of Denison Mines (USA) Corp.'s Revised Cell48 Design
Report and Responses to Rounds 1, 2 & j Interrogatories
(UDRC.00SS000.I66), Memorandum from Jon Luellen and Robert Baird
(URS) to Loren Morton (Utah Division of Radiation Control), November
5,2009.
Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Quality,
"Ground Water Discharge Permit", UGW370004 issued to Denison Mines
(USA) Corp.of Denver, CO, expires March 8,2010.
UMETCO Minerals Corporation; Peel Environmental Services'
Groundwater Study, White Mesa Mill. January 1993.
U. S. Geological Survey, Interactive D eaggregation, 2002. URL:
http://earthquake.uses.eov/research/hazmaps/interastive/index.php ,2002.
U.S. Geological Survey, Earthquake Hazards Program: United States
National Seismic Hazard Maps. May 2008 and July 2009 Updates;URL:
http ://earthquake.us gs. eov/hazards/products/conterminous/2008/, 2008
and 2009
Wong,I.G. and Humphrey, J.R., Contemporary Seismicity, Faulting, and
the State of Stress in the Colorado Plateau'. Geological Society of
America Bulletin, v. l0l ,p.ll27'1146,1989
Wong, I.G., Olig, S.S., and Bott, J.D.J., Earthquake potential and seismic
hazards in the Paradox Bqsin, southeastern Utah, in Geology and
Resources of the Paradox Basin, 1996 Special Symposium, A'C' Huffrnan,
Wong 1996
88
Cell48 Environmenrot n)rt and License Amendment Requesttt:1ffr:":iili:#';:!,ytr"" *o t"'nse Amendment Request - IrnS
W.R. Lund, and L.H. Godwin (eds.), Utah Geological Association and
Four Corners Geological Society Guidebook 25, p. 241 -250, 1996.
Statement of Basis
Page I of20 Utafrlion of Radiation Control
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
GWQDP Modification
Permit UGW370004
STATE OF UTAH
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITYUTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-4870
GROI.IND WATER QUALITY DISCHARGE PERMIT UGW37OOO4
STATEMENT OF BASIS
White Mesa Uranium Mill, Cell48 Construction
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
Independen ce Plaza, Suite 95 0
1050 lTth Street
Denver, Colorado 80265
April 6,2010
PURPOSE
The purpose of this Statement of Basis (hereafter SOB) is to describe the technical and
regulatory basis to proposed modifications to requirements found in Ground Water eualityDischarge Permit (GWDP) No. UGW37}0O4 (hereafter Permit) for a new uranium taitings
disposal embankment, Cell 48 atDenison Mines (USA) Corp. (hereafter DUSA) White M6u
Uranium Mill located near Blanding, San Juan County, Utah. The Mill is located on fee land andmill site claims, covering approximately 5,415 acres, encompassing all or part of Sections 2l,ZZ,27,28,29,32, and 33 of Township 37 South, Range 22Bast, and sectionr 4, 5, 6,g,g,and 16 ofTownship 38 South, Range 22East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian.
Some changes to the permit are considered major by the Executive Secretary, and as such require
the opportunity for providing public comment. Major changes to the Permii are those that may
have a potential impact on the protection of public health and the environment. Other changes
are considered minor by the Executive Secretary, and as such need not be submitted for public
comment. Minor changes to the Permit are those that are considered to: (1) have no impact on
the protection of the environment, or (2) are more stringent or protective than those already
authorized in the existing Permit. The proposed changes to the Permit are highlighted in rldlir.-
strikeout format in Attachment l.
Statement of Basis
Page2 of20
U,"h D*on of Radiation Control
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
GWQDP Modification
Permit UGW370004
Both minor and major changes associated with this Permit modification include, but are not
limited to, the following:
o Requires a 4-foot-wide buffer zone on the inside area of the Feedstock Storage Area
be maintained free of bulk Feedstock materials
. Specifies that any failure to achieve or maintain the required Best Available
Technologies (BAT) performance standards for Cell 4A constitutes a violation of the
Permito Requires the Permittee to submit a revised Cell 4,A. BAT Monitoring, Operations and
Maintenance Plan that includes procedures and reporting requirements for liner
repairso Summarizes the approved Design Standards for Tailings Cell 48 and specifies that
the BAT design standard for Tailings Cell 48 shall be defined by and the Cell 48
construction shall conform to the engineering plans, specifications, supporting
analyses, and calculationso Sets forth the BAT perforrnance standards for Tailings Cell 48
Requires that at least three new groundwater compliance monitoring wells be
installed following construction of Cell 48 hydraulically downgradient of Cell48
Requires the Permittee to: (l) notify UDRC of any damage to, and proposed repairs
of, installed liners that may occur in Cell 4,A. and 48 liner during operations in those
cells; (2) complete all necessary repairs to the liner in accordance with repair methods
specified in approved Cell4,{ and Cell48 Construction Quality Assurance/Quality
Control Plans; and (3) submit a Liner Repair Report to UDRC documenting any such
liner repairs
Requires the Permittee to collect tailings wastewater samples for analysis from
multiple locations at Cell48
Requires the Permittee to implement and document the results of a monitoring
program
Requires the Permittee to conduct monthly recovery and fluid level measurements of
the Tailings Cell 48 slimes drain recovery heads
. Specifies the content and requirements of the Cell48 BAT Monitoring, Operations
and Maintenance Plan
o Requires weekly tailings wastewater freeboard measurements in Cell 48
. Requires the Permittee to submit a monitoring well As-Built report for the three new
groundwater monitoring wells to be installed in conjunction with the construction of
Cell48o Requires the Permittee to provide all requested information, resolve all issues
identified, and re-submit reports for Executive Secretary review and approval within a
timeframe approved by the Executive Secretary
o Requires the Permittee to provide at least a7-calendu-day written notice prior to any
drilling and well installation activities
Statement of Basis
Page 3 of20 utun lion of Radiation Control
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
GWQDP Modification
Permit UGW370004
o Requires that additional monitoring wells, should the Executive Secretary determine
that they are required, be installed and approved by the Executive Secretary before
tailings management Cell 48 is placed into serviceo Requires the Permittee to commence a quarterly groundwater sampling program in
the three new monitoring wells to be installed in -onjunction withihe constiuction ofCell 48 within a specified time frameo Requires the Permittee to prepare and submit a BAT Monitoring, Operations and
Maintenance Plan for proposed new tailings management cell 48.
Requires the Permittee to submit an engineering As-Built Report to document all Cell48 construction activities
Requires the Permittee to conduct an additional hydrogeologic and field investigationof seeps and Ruin Spring west and southwest of the tailings management cell area andfurther delineate the relationship of flow in the perched *rter systim to these seeps
and springs and to the geologic contact between two formations beneath the mill site
and underlying the area to the west and southwest
Require the Permittee to revise one engineering design drawing entitled,.Sheet 6 of8", as listed in Table 6 of the Permit, and receive the Executive Secretary's approvalbefore constructing Cell 48
Numerous minor changes
BACKGRO[]ND
The White Mesa uranium mill was constructed in 1979 - 1980 and licensed under federalregulations by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (hereafter NRC), Source Material LicenseSUA-1358. On August 16, 2004,the NRC delegated its uranium mill regulatory program to theState of Utah, by extending Agreement State status. As a result, the Utai'Division of RadiationControl (hereafter UDRC) became the primary regulatory authority for the DUSA White Mesamill for both radioactive materials and groundwater protection. Later, DUSA was issued a State
Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit No. UGW370004 on March 8, 2005. previous to themodification proposed herein today, the Permit was last modified on January ZO,20lO.
DUSA has requested authority to construct a new tailings Cell 48 to be used in managingtailings generated by the milling process. Since operation of this new facility could create thepotential for contaminant releases to the groundwater, it may be constructed and used only uponapproval under a Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit [hereafter Permit, also see UAC R3l7-6-6.1(A)l' The Executive Secretary has determined to issue this authori zationby modifying theexisting Permit. All Permit modifications proposed at this time are identified, eiplained, aidjustified in this Statement of Basis.
Although Cell 48 is a new facility that might affect groundwater quality, UDRC has decided tomodiff the existing Permit rather than issue a new Permit. Thus, UDRi.must ensure that theprovisions of UAC R3 t7-6-6 are or will be satisfied. The UDRC's rationale for concluding that
Statement of Basis
Page 4 of20
ut"h Dtn of Radiation control
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
GWQDP Modification
Permit UGW370004
the more substantive of those provisions are or willbe satisfied is presented below. Other
provisions are discussed on the Safety Evaluation Report (uRS 2010).
o Issuance of a Discharge Permit IUAC F(3l7-6-6.4(A)] - in the process of issuance of a
Permit, the Executive Secretary is required to provide findings on the several issues,
including:
"1. the applicant demonstrates that the applicable class TDS limits, ground water
quality standards protection levels, and permit limits established under R317-6-6-4E
will be met;"
Findine - Cell 48 has been designed with two synthetic liners, a leak detection
tuye.;ond a geosynthetic clay liner system, using Best Available Technology
("bAT"). These features are designed to prevent or minimize migration of wastes
out of Cell48 to the adjacent subsurface soil, groundwater, or surface water at any
time during the active life (including closure period) of the cell. Further, Cell 48
has been designed to be closed with the liner system left in place. As a result, the
liner system will be constructed of materials that can prevent or minimize wastes
from migrating into the liner during the active life of the facility.
It is the Executive Secretary's intent to approve the liner system proposed for Cell
48, based on recommendations of URS Corporation (URS 2009) developed from a
review of the Cell48 Design Report and related documents. The design approach
for the liner system to be incorporated into Cell 48 is identical to that used to
design the liner system for Cell 44, previously approved by UDRC (UDRC 2008b).
Final construction of Cell48 willbe documented by the Permittee in a report that
will be submitted for Executive Secretary review and approval before Cell48 is put
into service (Permit, Part I.H.9). For additional information, refer to "10CFR40,
Appendix A, Criterion 5A(1): Ground-Water Protection Standards" and "UAC
R3l7-6-6.4: Issuance of Discharge Permit" in URS 2010.
"2. the monitoring plan, sampling and reporting requirements are adequate to
det ermine complianc e with appli cable requirements ; "
Findine - construction and operation of Cell 48 will not create new issues of
"o**111
orer and above those considered and accepted for existing licensed
facilities at the mill. The physical, chemical and radiological make up of the
tailings is not expected to be significantly different from that of existing tailings or
fromihe assrmptions in the previously issued GWDP. Cell48 will have a double
liner/leak detection/slimes drain system similar to that of Cell4A which is designed
not to release tailings solutions to the environment and that UDRC has already
approved. Any releases at Cell 48 would be detected by the leak detection system
Statement of Basis
Page 5 of20
Utun lion of Radiation Control
Denison Mines (USA) Corp,
GWQDP Modification
Permit UGw370004
(LDS) and groundwater monitoring programs and remediated before there could be
any impact on the public.
The Permittee also provided information in a Hydro Geo chem letter dated
February 12,2010, discussing the inferred distribution of conglomeratic zones
within the Dakota Formation, and their inferred vertical and aerial extent of the
elevated portion of the contact surface of the Burro canyon/Brushy Basin
Formations on geologic cross sections that span the Cell 48 foofprint area.
UDRC will incorporate a new Permit condition requiring that a minimum of three
additional downgradient groundwater monitoring wells be installed in conjunction
with the construction of Cell48 (see in the proposed Permit new part LH.6). The
condition will require that the well installation for two wells be approved by UDRC
before Cell 48 is placed into service. The location of the third well will be
approved by the Executive Secretary prior to placing Cell 48 into service, and the
third well must be installed within calendar 30 days of its location being approved.
Another new condition will also be included in the forthcoming Permit to require
the Permittee to conduct an additional hydrogeologic investigation in the area to the
west of the cell 48 footprint area, extending to and including existing seeps
(cottonwood Seep and westwater seep) and Ruin Spring located west and
southwest of the tailings management cells. The investigation will be conducted to
verify the relationship of the (geologic) contact between the Brushy Basin and the
Burro Canyon formations to the seeps and springs. The Permittee must submit a
report presenting the results of these additional investigations prior to placing Cell
48 into service (see new Part I.H.10).
the applicant is using best available technologt to minimize the discharge of any
pollutant; and"
Findine - cell 48 has been designed using Best Available Technology ("BAT")
methodologies, as described under Issuance of a Discharge Permit IUAC R3l7-6-
6.4(A)1, Item I above.
"4. tltere is no impairment ofpresent andfuture beneJicial uses of the ground water."
Finding - the Permittee has provided proposed engineering design and construction
specifications for Cell 48 that use BAT, and has proposed to install three new
groundwater compliance monitoring wells downgradient of Cell 48, once the cell is
constructed. These new wells will be incorporated into the ongoing sampling and
analysis program for the mill site. The expanded sampling and analysis program,
combined with the BAT-based Cell 48 design, and implementation of an Executive
Statement of Basis
Page 6 of20
ut"h Dt"n of Radiation control
Denison Mines (USA) Corp,
GWQDP Modification
Permit UGW370004
Secretary approved Cell48 BAT, Monitoring, Operations and Maintenance Plan
that the Permit will require be submitted for Cell 48 (New Part I.H.8) are expected
to satisfu the operational monitoing I maintenance, and groundwater monitoring
requirements of UAC F.3I7-6-6,4(A) 4. A new condition (Part I.H.10) has also been
added to the Permit to require that the Permittee conduct an additional
hydrogeologic investigation in the area to the west of the Cell 48 footprint area, to
further delineate the relationship of flow in the perched groundwater zone and the
seeps and Ruin Spring (see the discussion under "Groundwater Compliance and
Performance Monitoring [UAC R317-6-6.9(A) and (B)] below). For additional
information, refer to "UAC P.3l7-6-6.4:"lssuance of Discharge Permit" in URS
2010.
Groundwater Compliance and Performance Monitoring [UAC R317-6-6.9(4) and (B)] -
the Permittee provided updated site information on site hydrogeology (HGCI 2009 and
HGCI2010). The HGCI reports provide information indicating that the proposed
groundwater monitoring system, including three new monitoring wells (MW-33, MW-34,
and MW-35) proposed to be installed downgradient of Cell 48, together with existing
wells MW-14 and MW-15, and other downgradient monitoring wells, would be sufficient
in number, are properly located, and are properly designed to provide reasonable
assurance of providing timely, reliable, and representative data for detecting potential
future releases from the tailings management cells, including Cell 48. As stated above, a
new condition (Part I.H.6) has been added to the Permit to require that wells MW-33 and
MW-34 be installed and the location of well MW-35 be approved by the Executive
Secretary before Cell 4E} is placed into service
Background Ground Water Quality Determinations [UAC R317-6-6.10] - the Executive
Secretary's determination regarding background groundwater quality for the site is set out
in the 2009 Statement of Basis (UDRC 2009) and in the Permit issued on January 20,
2010, and is based on previous review of work submitted by the Permittee. Background
groundwater quality reports were also considered in light of groundwater geochemical
and isotopic sampling and analysis performed by the University of Utah Department of
Geology and Geophysics (Hurst 2008). Those documents and other documents
considered by the Executive Secretary in determining background groundwater quality at
the site are listed in the References section of the September,2009 Statement of Basis
(UDRC 200e).
Background groundwater quality has yet to be determined by the Executive Secretary for
the three new groundwater compliance monitoring wells required to be installed in
conjunction with the construction of Cell 48. A new condition (Part I.H.7) has been
added to the Permit to require submittal of a background groundwater quality report after
8 quarters of sampling and analysis of these new wells. For additional information, refer
to "UAC R317-6-6.10: Background Water Quality Determination" of URS 2010.
Statement of Basis
PageT of20 Utuf,lion of Radiation Conhol
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
GWQDP Modification
Permit UGW370004
Submission of Monitoring Data IUAC R3l7-6-6.12] - for additional information, refer to"UAC R317-6-6.12: Submission of Data,,in URS 2010.)
Reporting of Mechanical Problems or Discharge System Failures IUAC R3l7-6-6.13] -the Permit requires that notices be given in the event of failure to maintain discharge
minimization technology ('DMT") or BAT standards required under the permit (part
I.G.3) and if the facility is otherwise out of compliance (Part I.G.4 and part II.1). Foradditional information, refer to "UAC R317-6-6.13: Reporting of Mechanical problems
or Discharge System Failures" in URS 2010.
Correction of Adverse Effects Required [UAC R317-6-6.1 4] - part I.G.4 of the permit
specifies the actions that must be taken by the Permittee in the event of a violation of acondition of the Permit. For additional information, refer to ,,UAC R3l7-6-6.14:
Correction of Adverse Effects" in URS 2010.
Out of Compliance Status IUAC R317-6-6.16] - the determination of when the mill is outof compliance and the procedures to be followed once the facility is so determined are set
out in Part LG of the Permit, which incorporates the requirements of UAC R3l7-6-6.16,
and has since original issuance of the Permit in March iOOS, For additional information,
refer to "uAC R317-6-6.16: out-of-Status compliance" in uRS 2olo.
Procedure when a Facility is out of compliance [uAC R317-6-6.17] - the determinationof when the mill is out of compliance and the proiedures to be followed once the facilityis so determined are set out in Part LG of the Permit, which incorporates the requir..rnt,of UAC R3l7-6-6.17. For additional information, refer to.,uAC R317.6-6.17;
Procedure when A Facility is out-otcompliance" in uRS 2010.
The major Permit changes are given below in the same order that they appear in the permit.
The Permit has been revised to require that a 4-foot-wide buffer zone be maintained on the inside
area of the Feedstock Storage Area that is to remain free of bulk Feedstock materials in order to
assure that these materials do not extend beyond the designated, fenced Feedstock Storage Area.
Statement of Basis
Page 8 of20
,,rn oton of Radiation control
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
GWQDP Modification
Permit UGW370004
Revision of Part I.D.6: BAT Perforrqance Standards for Tailines Cell 4A
Part I.D.6 of the Permit has been revised to clarify that any failure to achieve or maintain the
required BAT perfonnance standards for Cell 4,A. will constitute a violation of the Permit and
require the Permittee to report such a violation to the Executive Secretary in accordance with
Part LG.3 of the Permit.
New Part I.P.12: BAT Desien Standards for Tailines Cell48. includine Table 6
The Permit has been revised to include a provision that summarizes the approved Design
Standards for Tailings Cell 48, specifying that the BAT design standard and construction shall
conform to the engineering plans, specifications, supporting analyses, and calculations listed in
Table 6. Detailed UDRC evaluation of these Cell 48 related documents is found in a November
5,2OOg URS technical memorandum. It is the intent of the UDRC through this action to approve
the DUSA Cell 48 engineering design and specifications. Pertinent details of the following
major elements of the Cell 4B engineering design are identified and described in DUSA
documents listed in proposed Table 6, including but not limited to:
o Dikes;
o Foundation;
o Tailings Capacity;
o Liner and leak Detection Systems, including the following components:
o Primary Flexible Membrane Liner (FML)
o Leak Detection System
o Secondary FML
o Geosynthetic Clay Liner;
Slimes Drain Collection System, including the following components:
o Horizontal Strip Drain Collection System
o Horizontal Slimes Drain Collection Pipe System
o Slimes Drain Access Pipe;
North and East Dike Splash Pads; and
Cell 48 Emergency Spillway
These added provisions formally invoke the applicable engineering design standards,
specificationJ, and calculations approved for Cell 48 design, and codify thO general and unique
features and characteristics (including tailings capacity of Cell 48, Cell 48 dike locations and
dike widths, and number and locations of splash pads, etc) of the approved Cell48 design. This
information is summarized andpresented in the Table 6 documents in a manner similar to that by
which information for the approved Cell 4A Design Standards was previously formalized and
presented in Table 5 of the March 17 ,2008 Permit.
a
a
Statement of Basis
Page 9 of20
Utaf,lion of Radiation Control
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
GWQDP Modification
Permit ucw370004
In general, the design basis for Cell 48 is similar to that already approved for Cell 44. Many of
the specific details regarding the Cell 44 engineering design and specifications were providid
the public earlier in an October 24,2007 UDRC Statement of Basii (SOB) and a March 14, 200g
Public Participation Summary PPS). The reader is referred to these two documents for
additional information. However, certain exceptions exist in the engineering design basis forCell48, as follows:
The floor and inside slopes of Cell48 encompass about 44 acres,and the cell will
have a water surface area of 40 acres while cell 4A occupies an area of
approximately 40 acres.
Dikes for Cell 48 will range in base width from approximately 92 to 190 feet while
dikes for cell 4A will range in base width from approximately g9 to 2ll feet
Cell 48 has a tailings capacity of approximately 1.9 million cubic yards while Cell
44 has a tailings capacity of approximately I .6 million cubic yards, both as measured
below the required 3-foot freeboard.
Cell 48 will include 9 splash pads, constructed on the north and east dikes while Cell44 has 8 splash pads, 4 installed on the north dike and 4 installed on the east dike of
the cell.
The calculated amount of time required for the slimes drain system in Cell 48 to
dewater the tailings is 5.45 years, or approximately 5.5 years. This drain down time
is somewhat less than that drain down time calculated for cell 4A. For more
information, see the discussion under New Part I.D.13 below.
The calculated maximum allowable daily leakage rate for the Leak Detection System
(LDS) in Cell 48 is 26,145 gallons/day. This leakage rate is slightly greater than the
calculated maximum allowable daily leakage rate for LDS in Cell44. For more
information, see the discussion under New Part LD.13 below.
New Part I.D.13: BAT Perlormance standards for Tailines cen 48
This section of the Permit sets forth the BAT performance standards for Tailings Cell 48. These
Cell 48 performance standards are very similar to those already established in Fart I.D.6 for
existing cell4.{. However, some exceptions exist for cell48, as follows:
Maximum Allowable Daily Head - has not yet been determined due to the fact that
Cell48 has not yet been constructed [Part I.D.13(a)]. It is the Executive Secretary's
intent to establish that in the Permit, after approval of the Cell 48 As-Built Report,
required in Part LH.9 (see below).
LDS Maximum Allowable Daily Leakage Rate - 26,145 gallons/day (see description
under "New Part I.H.8 - Revised BAT Monitoring, Operations and Maintenance Plan
for Cell44 and BAT Monitoring, Operations and Maintenance Plan for Cell 48"
Statement of Basis
Page l0 of20
ut"h ntn of Radiation control
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
GWQDP Modification
Permit UGW370004
below). This calculated maximum leakage rate is slightly higher than that calculated
for Cell 44; the difference in the calculated values is attributable to differences in the
geometric configurations of Cells 48 and 4A.
Slimes Drain Drain-Down Time - calculated amount of time required for the slimes
drain system in Cell 48 to dewater the tailings is approximately 5'5 years (see
description under "New Part I.H.8 - Revised BAT Monitoring, Operations and
Maintenance Plan for Cell4A and BAT Monitoring, Operations and Maintenance
Plan for Cell48" below). The corresponding maximum drain-down time for Cell4,{
is somewhat greater (6.4 years), due to deviations in construction of sand bags used as
a filter media above the slimes drain strip drains and main drain line. To address
these construction problems the DUSA consultant, Geosyntec Inc, provided a revised
drain-down calculation (6.4 years) in a July 2,2008 email submittal to the DRC
(Geosyntec, 2008). DRC staff later accepted this revised calculation in a letter dated
August 18, 2008 (UDRC 2008c). Recent efforts made in preparation and review of
the Cell48 design will hopetully avoid this type of pitfall seen at the Cell4,{ Cell.
Maximum Weekly Wastewater Level - the freeboard in Cell 48 must be no less then
3 feet, as measured from the top of the upper FML.
It is the Executive Secretary's intent, after Cell 48 is constructed and the As-Built Report
approved, that the Permittee identify a compliance fluid level (vertical height) above the
eievation of the transducer (found at the bottom of the LDS collection sump) that corresponds to
a 1-foot hydraulic head level in the LDS at the lowest point in the cell floor (outside of the
collectionsump). Once the Permittee has determined and the Executive Secretary has approved
this height value, it will be added to the Permit under Parts I.D.t3.(a) and Part I.E.12(a)(2), in a
manner consistent with the analogous compliance height value specified for Cell 4,{ in Parts
I.D.6 (a) and I.E.8(a)(2).
New Part I.E.1(bX3): Ground Water Compliance and Technoloev Performance
Monitorine - Future Cell48 Downeradient Wells to be Installed
The Permit has been revised to require that at least three new groundwater compliance
monitoring wells (to be designated wells MW-33, MW-34, and MW-35) be installed in
conjunction with construction and use of Cell48. Wells MW-33 and MW-34 arcto be installed
first, and before Cell48 is put into use. Then the location of Well MW-35 will be based on
hydrogeologic information obtained from the development of Wells MW-33 and MW-34. These
,L* *i11. will be installed to monitor groundwater conditions in the downgradient from the
approved Cell48 footprint. The wells are intended to serve as additional future compliance
monitoring wells for detecting potential releases from Cell 48 to the perched groundwater zone
that underlies the Cell 48 and the adjacent tailings management cells. The provision requires
that well design and construction conform to existing requirements in the Permit (Part I.E.4), and
that well As-Built reports be submitted for approval.
Statement of Basis
Page I I of20
Utaf, eion of Radiation Control
Denison Mines (USA) Corp,
GWQDP Modification
Permit UGW370004
Revised Part I.E.7(fl: DMT Performance Standards Monitorine - Inspections of Tailine
Cell and Pond Liner Systems
The provision specifying inspections of tailing cell and pond liner systems [Part I.E.7(f)] has
been revised to require the Permittee to report any liner defect or damage identified during
inspections pursuant to Part LG.3, and to repair such defects or damage by implementing the
currently approved Liner Maintenance Provisions, and to report all such repairs.
The modification formalizes expected practice in the event that any defect or damage is
identified during a liner system inspections at Tailings Cells I ,2,3, and the Roberts Pond,
New Part I.E.8(c): CelI4A BAT Performance Standards Monitorins - Liner Maintenance
and Repair
The Permit has been revised to require that the Permittee complete all necessary repairs to the
liner to address damage that might occur to the liner during operations in Cell 44. in accordance
with Section 9.4 of the approved Cell 4,A' Construction Quality Assurance Plan (QA/QC Plan).
All repairs will be performed by qualified liner installation personnel, which shall be reported in
a Liner Repair Report. The provision requires that any leak, hole, or other damage to the liner be
reported verbally to the Executive Secretary in accordance with Part I.G.3 of the Permit. The
Permittee shall also report all repairs made pursuant to Part I.F.2 of the Permit.
Finally, the new provision located at Part I.H.S(c) requires that a Liner Repair Report signed by a
Utah Licensed Professional Engineer be submitted to the Executive Secretary for each liner
repair completed.
Revised Part I.E.10: Tailines Cell4B Wastewater Samnlinq
The Permit has been modified to require the Permittee to collect tailings wastewater samples for
analysis from multiple locations at Cell 48, in additional to those already listed in this part of the
Permit.
New Part I.E.l2(a): Cell48 BAT Performance Standards Monitorins
The Permit has been revised to require that immediately following Executive Secretary approval
of the Cell 4B Best Available Technologies (BAT), Monitoring, Operations and Maintenance
Plan, required under Part I.H.8, the Permittee implement and document the results of a
monitoring program that shall include the following (for details, see the revised Permit):
Statement of Basis
Page 12 of20
U,"h Dt"n of Radiation Control
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
GWQDP Modification
Permit UGw370004
Continuous operation of the LDS pumping and monitoring equipment, and a requirement
that failures not repaired within 24-hours will be both a failure of BAT and a Permit
violation;
Monitoring to verify compliance with Maximum Allowable Head Criteria (l)'and a
requirement that LDS head values above this criteria constitute a BAT failure and a
Permit violation;
Monitoring to verify compliance with Maximum Allowable Average Daily LDS Flow
Rates and a requirement to maintain such flow rates below 26,145 gallons/day; and
o Conduct measurements to verify compliance with the 3-foot minimum vertical freeboard
requirement for Cell 48, as made to the nearest 0.1 foot.
New Part I.E.12(b): Cell48 BAT Performance Standards Monitorine - Slimes Drain
Recoverv Head Monitoring
This Permit revision also requires that the Permittee conduct monthly recovery and fluid level
measurements of the slimes drain recovery heads in Cell 48, immediately after initiating
pumping conditions in the slimes drain system. This provision is added to formalize
requirements for verifying that the applicable design intent and predicted performance of the
slimes drain system approved for Cell 48 design are achieved. Further, that monitoring and
reporting thereof be done in a manner similar to that is required for Cells 2 and 3 in Part I.D.3)
and LE.7(b). At some future date, the Executive Secretary will need to revise the requirements at
Part LF.11 to include quarterly reporting of said slimes drain recovery monitoring for Cells 4A
and 48.
New Part I.E.12(c): Cell48 BAT Performance Standards Monitorine - Liner Maintenance
and Repairs
The Permit has been revised to require that the Permittee complete all necessary repairs to the
liner to address damage that might occur to the liner during operations in Cell48 in accordance
with Section 10.4 of the approved Cell48 Construction Quality Assurance Plan (Q{QC Plan)
identified in Table 6 of the Permit, and that all such repairs be performed by qualified liner
installation personnel, and that such repairs be reported in a Liner Repair Report certified by a
Utah licensed Professional Engineer. The provision requires that any leak, hole, or other damage
to the liner be reported verbally to the Executive Secretary in accordance with Part I.G.3 of the
Permit. The Permittee shall also report all repairs made pursuant to Part I.F.3 of the Permit.
For additional information on how the maximum allowable head will be determined after Cell 48
construction, see discussion under Part I.D.l3, above.
Statement of Basis
Page 13 of20
Utun lion of Radiation Control
Denison Mines (USA) Corp,
GWQDP Modification
Permit UGW370004
for Cell 48 includes the same
Part I.E.8(c)".
The justification for adding this provision to the Permit
considerations described above for Cell 4,A' under "New
Revision to Part I.F.3: Reoortine Requirements - Routine Cell44, and 48 BAT
Performance Standards Monitorins and Maintenance Reports
This part of the Permit has been changed as follows:
a. Changed the title of Part I.F.3 to "Routine Cell4A and 48 BAT Perfomance Standards
Monitoring and Maintenance Reports"; and
b. Require that when a liner repair is performed at tailings Cell 44, or 48, a Repair Report is
to be submitted as required by Parts I.8.8(c) and I.E.l2(c) of the Permit, and that this
Repair Report be included with the next quarterly BAT Monitoring and Maintenance
Report.
c. Require weekly tailings wastewater freeboard measurements in Cell 48 [Part LF.3(b)].
New Part I.H.6: Installation of New Groundwater Monitorine Wells
The Permit has been revised to require that the Permittee install at least three hydraulically
downgradient wells adjacent to tailings management Cell48. The Permit revision specifies that
the locations of the first two new wells installed are to be the same as those for proposed
monitoring wells MW-33 and MW-34 as shown on Figure 4 of the February 8, 2010 submittal
by Hydro Geo Chem Inc., and that the exact location of the third new monitoring well be
determined through consideration of hydrogeologic information acquired through development
of wells MW-33 and MW-34 and other related field investigations. The Permit requires that two
of these three new compliance monitoring wells (MW-33 and MW-34) be installed prior to
placement of tailings and wastewater in Cell 48. This Permit revision requires that these
monitoring wells:
a. Provide early detection of tailings cell contamination of shallow groundwater from
Tailings Cell48.
b. Provide discrete groundwater monitoring for Tailings Cell 48.
c. Comply with the design, construction, and development requirements found in Part I.8.4
of the Permit.
This Permit revision also requires that, within 45 calendar days of completing installation of
wells MW-33 and MW-34, the Permittee submit a monitoring well As-Built report to document
said well construction for Executive Secretary approval, and that the report complies with the
existing requirements for well as-built reports found in Part I.F.6. Part I.H.6 also requires the
following:
Statement of Basis
Page 14 of20
ut"h oton of Radiation control
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
GWQDP Modification
Permit UGW370004
If additional information is required during review of the well as-built report, that the
Permittee provide all requested information within a time frame approved by the
Executive Secretary;
The Permittee provide at least a7 calendar day written notice to allow the Executive
Seuetary to observe all drilling and well installation activities; and
Should the Executive Secretary determine that additional monitoring wells are required
under Part I.H.6(e), these new wells will be installed and approved within a time frame
approved by the Executive Secretary.
The Permit has also been revised to require that before placing tailings or wastewater in Tailings
Cell 48, the Permittee must also submit to the Executive Secretary for approval, a proposed
location for new compliance monitoring well MW-35. The Permittee must complete installation
of Well MW-35 within 30 calendar days of the Executive Secretary's approval of the proposal
for its installation.
The Permittee is also required to submit for Executive Secretary approval, a monitoring well As-
Build report for well MW-35, within 45 calendar days of completing well installation, to
document its construction. Similar to the requirements for the other two new wells, design and
construction of well MW-35 must comply with the requirements of Part I.E.4. The As-Built
report for the third new well must also comply with the requirements of Part I.F.6 of the Permit.
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. The addition
of this new provision to the Permit requires that new compliance monitoring wells be installed
downgradient of the footprint of Cell 48 and allows the Executive Secretary to review and
approved the location and design of the third monitoring well. The location of well MW-35 will
be based on additional hydrogeologic data that will be obtained from installation of the first two
additional wells. Part I.H.6 also ensures that all three of the new wells will be installed in a
timely manner with respect to the development of new Cell 48.
New Part I.H.7: Backsround Groundwater Oualitv Report for New Monitoring Wells
The Permit has been revised to require that the Permittee, within 30 calendar days of receipt of
written Executive Secretary approval for use of Tailings Cell 48, commence a quarterly
groundwater sampling program that will comply with the following Permit requirements:
a. Routine groundwater compliance monitoring requirements of Part I.E.l of the Permit.
b. Well monitoring procedure requirements of Fart I.E.5 of the Permit.
After completion of eight consecutive quarters of groundwater sampling and analysis of these
new wells, the Permittee will also submit, for Executive Secretary approval, a Background
Report that will include:
b.
c.
1) Data preparation and statistical analysis of groundwater quality data, including but
Statement of Basis
Page l5 of20
Utun lion of Radiation Control
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
GWQDP Modification
Permit UGW370004
not limited to, evaluation of data characteristics and internal data consistency,
treatment of non-detectable values, and statistical methods used. These statistics shall
be calculated using the Decision Tree/Flowchart used for the previous Background
Reports that was conditionally approved by the UDRC on August 24,2007.
2) Shallow aquifer average linear groundwater velocity calculated for the new wells,
based on well specific hydraulic conductivity, hydraulic gradient, and effective
aquifer porosity.
After review of the report, if the Executive Secretary determines that additional information is
required, the Permittee will provide all requested information, resolve all issues identified, and
re-submit the report for Executive Secretary review and approval within a timeframe approved
by the Executive Secretary. After approval of this report, the Executive Secretary will re-open
this Permit and establish appropriate monitoring frequency and Groundwater Compliance Limits
in Table 2 of the Permit for the each of the new wells at Cell 48.
New Part I.H.8 - Revised BAT Monitorins. Operations and Maintenance Plan for CelI4A
and BAT Monitorine. Operations,a,nd Maintenance Plan for Cell4B
The Permit has been revised to require that the Permittee submit, for Executive Secretary
approval, a revised BAT, Monitoring, Operations and Maintenance Plan for Cell4,A. and a BAT,
Monitoring, Operations and Maintenance Plan for Cell 48. The revised Cell4A BAT,
Monitoring, Operations, and Maintenance Plan shall include the elements described in Parts
I.D.6 and I.E.8 of the Permit. The Cell48 BAT, Monitoring, Operations, and Maintenance Plan
shall include the elements described in I.D.13 and LE.l2 of the Permit. At the discretion of the
Permittee, these plans may be combined into one. The Permit revision also requires that these
plans be approved by the Executive Secretary prior to placing any tailings or wastewater in Cell
48,
This new compliance schedule item was needed because:
The existing Cell 44' BAT Monitoring, Operations, and Maintenance Plan needs to be
revised to include procedures and reporting requirements for repairs to the liner in Cell
4,A' to address any damage that may occur to the liner during operations in Cell 4,{
This new item ensures that the Cell48 BAT Monitoring, Operations, and Maintenance
Plan will include monitoring procedures and reporting requirements for: BAT
performance standards and requirements in new Parts I.D.13 and I.E.12(a) and (b), and
any repairs to the liner in Cell4B to address any damage that may occur pursuant to Part
1E.12(c).
The intent of Part I.H.S is to provide a Cell 48 BAT, Operations and Maintenance Plan
that is similar to that required for Cell 4,{
Statement of Basis
Page 16 of20
Ut"h Dtn of Radiation Conffol
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
GWQDP Modification
Permit UGW370004
New Part I.H.9: Cell48 As-Built Report
The Permit has been revised to require that the Permittee submit for Executive Secretary
approval, an engineering As-Built Report to document all construction activities, for Executive
Secretary review and approval. The Permit revision requires that any deviations from the
Executive Secretary approved engineering design and/or specifications be clearly disclosed and
described and that the As-Built Report be certified by a Utah licensed Professional Engineer.
The Permit revision also requires that, if after review of the As-Built report, and the Executive
Secretary determines that additional information is required, the Permittee provide all requested
information, and resolve all issues identified, before Cell48 is put into service. This Permit
revision is needed to allow the Executive Secretary to conduct a formal review of the final Cell
48 construction to ensure it can perform in accordance with the approved engineering design.
Based on information provided in this process, certain Permit requirements may be amended at a
future date, e.g., BAT performance standards in Part I.E.l2.
New Part I.H.10: Additional Hvdroeeolosic Investisation and Report
The Permit has been revised to require that the Permittee conduct additional hydrogeologic and
field investigation to: (1) Resolve uncertainties and apparent discrepancies in elevation survey
data flor springs and seeps at the margin of White Mesa, including, but not limited to,
Cottonwood Seep and/or Westwater Seep and Ruin Spring, (2) Determine the elevation of the
upper geologic contact of the Brushy Basin Shale Member at nearby seeps / springs, and
compare the elevations of the same geologic contact in monitoring wells in the vicinity of the
tailings management cells and other areas across the facilityi and (3) Verify the hydrogeologic
nature of nearby seeps and springs, including whether they are influenced or controlled by said
geologic contact. In addition, the purposes of such studies also include, but are not limited to:
o Further delineate the physical relationship between the perched groundwater flow
system that underlies the White Mesa facility and nearby vicinity atop the geologic
contact between the Brushy Basin Shale and Burro Canyon Formations;
o Determine directions of groundwater flow to the closest point(s) of surface discharge
of the perched groundwater zorrc downgradient of the facility; and
o Confirm the estimated groundwater travel time to said surface discharge point(s) from
the tailings management cell area, including Cell48.
Such information will assist the Executive Secretary in an improved understanding of local
hydrogeologic characteristics, and possible points of potential contaminant exposure to the
public and environmental receptors. This information may also have important applications to
the on-going site investigations related to the chloroform and nitrate groundwater contaminant
plumes at the facility. This new requirement mandates that before use of Cell 48 for tailings
disposal that DUSA have the report certified by a Utah Licensed Professional Geologist or
Engineer, and submit the report for Executive Secretary approval. If the Executive Secretary
Statement of Basis
PagelT of20
Utuf, eion of Radiation Control
Denison Mines (USA) CorP'
GWQDP Modification
Permit UGW370004
determines that additional information is needed, DUSA will provide the requested information
and resolve all issues identified on a schedule approved by the Executive Secretary.
Linins Svstem Details II. Rev. 1"
During construction of Cell4A, UDRC staff observed certain difficulties in construction of the
main slimes drain collection line that drained multiple strip drains (for related details, see
discussion above at part LD.l3, slimes drain drain-down time). This slimes drain pipe ran from
the northeast to the southwest corners along the floor of Cell 44. The problem focused mainly
on the difficulty of achieving a 1H:1V slope on the gravel aggregate that surrounded the main
drain collection pipe. To conect the problem, certain engineering design changes were made
during construction of Cell44. The changes included deployment of additional sandbags in a
continuous configuration at either side of the drain pipe, in combination with a geotextile fabric,
to constrain and iontrol the gravel media around the drain pipe. This method helped the gravel
form a uniform geometry around the pipe, thus improving its performance as a drain.
In Cell 48 that same slimes drain function is to be performed by a similar drain pipe and gravel
aggregate zone thatwill run from the northwest corner to the southeast corner along the floor of
tiJOiiporul cell. To assist the permittee to avoid repeating this previous construction pitfall (and
required last-minute design change), Part I.H.l1 has been added to the Permit to require revision
ofine respective engineering design drawing, and Executive Secretary approval, before
construction of Celf4n. fo this end a footnote was also added to Table 6 of the Permit,
directing the Permittee to the new requirernent in Part LH.1l.
MINOR PERMIT CHANGES
The following minor changes are proposed to be made to the Permit:
o Modification of the header on each page to assist the reader to know what Permit
subarea was addressed there, e.g. Part I.E.
The word "Quality'' was deleted from the title on the second page of Table 2 to make
it consistent with the title of the first page of Table 2.
With the addition of the new Table 6 (entitled "Approved Tailings Cell 48
Engineering Design and Specifications") the previous Table 6 (entitled "Groundwater
VJnitoring ntpottit g Schedule") was renumbered to Table 7. All associated
references madi to faUte 6 in the text of the previous Permit have been changed to
refer instead to Table 7;
o Revised descriptive labels provided in Parts LD.5(0 and LD.5(g) to identify items
specifi cally associated with Cell 4,A';
Statement of Basis
Page l8 of20 Utrh Dtn of Radiation Conffol
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
GWQDP Modification
Permit UGW370004
a
a
The words "and Maintenance" were added to the title of part I.E.g.
The "LDS" was added to denote that the failure of pumping and monitoring
equipment referred to is that of LDS pumping and monitoring equipment.
Revised the opening paragraph of Part I.E.8 and Part I.8.8(b) to include reference toPart LH.8 of the Permit;
Revised Part I.E.10 to add cell4B to the Tailings Cell wastewater eualityMonitoring program and revise formatting in part I.E.10(dX5);
Revised Part I.F.3 to add Cell 48 as a cell required to be included in the Routine Cell48 BAT Performance standards Monitoring and Maintenance Reports; and
Revised formatting of text in Part I.F.
Correction of sundry typographical and formatting errors.
a
a
Statement of Basis
Page 19 of20
REFERENCES
Geosyntec 2008
HGCI2OO9
HGCI2OlO
UDRC 2OO7
UDRC 2008a
UDRC 2OO8b
UDRC 2008c
URS 2OO9
utun eion of Radiation Control
Denison Mines (USA) CorP.
GWQDP Modification
Permit UGW370004
Email transmittal from Greg corcoran to Dave R pp, RE: DUSA Cell44
Construction: Two Items noted,July 2,2008, includes July 2, 2008
spreadsheet (l p.)
Hydro Geo Chem, Inc, Sile Hydrogeology and Estimation of Groundwater
Tiavel Times in the Perched Zone, White Mesa (Jranium Mill Site Near
Blanding, Utah, Attgost27,2OO9; included as Appendix B to the
Reclamition Plan, Rev. 4.0 White Mesa Mill, Blanding, Utah' Denison
Mines (USA) Corporation (DUSA), November 2009'
Hydro Geo chern [nc,letter from stewart J. Smith (HGCI) to David
Frydenlund (DUSA), February 8,2010; included as Attachment H to
DUSAIs Re: llhite Mesa (Jranium Mill - Second Round of Interrogatories
from review of License Amendment Request and Environmental reportfor
Cell48 also dated FebruarY 8,2010'
Utah Division of Radiation control, statement of Basis for a uranium
Milling Facility South of Blanding, Utah, October24,2007 '
Utah Division of Radiation Control, Public Participation Summary Ground
water Discharge Permit (Permit)for the Denison Mines (usA) corp.
(DUSA) Uraniim Milling Facility south of Blanding, utah,March 14,2008.
Utah Division of Radiation Control, Ground Water Quality Discharge
Permit UGW370004, March 17,2008.
Utah Division of Radiation Control letter from Loren B' Morton to Harold
R. Robsrts (DUSA), "July 29, 2008 DRC Letter Regarding white Mesa
(Jranium itittt c"tt l,l operation; July 331, 2008 DUSA Email Regarding
252 Photos on c.D. (reieived August l, 2008), showing work completed on
Cetl4A Sand Bag Placement; August 7, 2008 DRC Email, Subiect: Sandbag
Adjustments @aitial Response to Submitted C.D. Photographs). Requestfor
Information", August 18, 2008 (includes Jvly 2,2008 Geosyntec ernail from
Greg Corcoran to Dave RuPP)'
URS Corporation, Final Summary of Review and Recommendationfor
Acceptanie of Denison Mines (USA) Corp.'s Revised Cell48 Design
Report and Responses to Rounds l, 2 & 3 Interrogatories
(ionc.ooss060.l66), Memorandum from Jon Luellen and Robert Baird
iunsl to Loren Morton (Utah Division of Radiation Control), November
5,2009.
Statement of Basis
Page 20 of20
URS 2OIO
u,.h o?ion of Radiation control
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
GWQDP Modification
Permit UGW370004
URS corporation, Denison Mines (usA) corp., License Amendment
Request and Environmental Reportfor cell iB safety Evaluation Reportunder UAC R3I3-24 and UAC R3 r 7-6,March ts, zoog (Draft).
Permit No. UGW370004
STATE OF UTAH
DTVISION OF WATER QUALITY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-4870
GROUND WATER DISCHARGE PERMIT
ln compliance with the provisions of the Utah Water Quality Act, Title 19, Chapter 5, Utah CodeAnnotated 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 oriatract of land in Sections28,29,32, and33, Township 37 South, Range Z2gast,Salt Lake Base andMeridian, San Juan County, Utah.
The permit is based on representations made by the Permittee and other information contained in theadministrative record. It is the responsibility of the Permittee to read and understand all provisions ofthis 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 become effective on
This Permit shall expire Ma.ch 8. 2010 (This p mely Renewal)
Permit
Signed this _ day of _,2010
Co-Executive Secretary
Utah Water Quality Board
Eval ......3
4.,.365. Existi
6. In ewG 36
7itorins W
1ons
...4t
4t
Opena MenqrsN
4
....,.......4
NSIBI
PART IV .......4A............43
..,,,...,.43
TORY
.....44
ob"n I.A-&I.B
Permit No. UGW370004
PART I. SPECIFIC PERMIT CONDITIONS
A. GnorwD WATER CraSSrpIcarIoN - the groundwater classification of the shallow aquifer underthe tailings facility has been determined on a well-by-well basis, as defined in Table 1, below:
Table 1. Ground Water Classification
Footnotes:
l) N = Number of Samples2) Based on historic total dissolved solids (TDS) data provided by the Permittee for period between october, 1929 and December, 2007. Thisdata was obtained from the Permittee's backgroundgroundwaier quality report. d.t"d o.tob".2oOZ ana epl.il:0, zOOS.3) Backgroundconcentrationsofuraniuminwelll4w-18(5s.rpeA-)ani*rattiuminl,tw-lg(2.lpgll-)exceedtheGwes,30
st{Land2.0pgll, 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, 6ut instead are grormdwater heJmonitoring wells as per part I.E.2.Average concentrations and standard deviations for wells MW-20 and MW-22 were calculated by DRC stafffrom data from the DUSA 2dand 3d Quarters of 2008 Routine Groundwater Monitoring Reports.5) Background concentration of manganese in well Mw-25 aI,806 pgll-) exceeds the GweS, therefore well MW-25 has been classified as classIII groundwater rather than Class II groundwater.6) well MW-26 was originally named rw4-15 -6 wss installed as part of the chloroform contaminant investigation at the facility. Under thisPermit, MW-26 is defured as -a Point of Compliance (POC) well for the tailings cells (see part I.E. 1).7) Background concentrations of uranium in well MW-27 Qa pdL) and selenir-rir in Mw-31 (71 pgll-) exceed the GWQS, therefore these wellshave been classified as class III gro,ndwater rather than class n groundwater.8) well MW-32 was originally named Tw4-17 and !v65 In5tallsd 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. BACKGROTND WATER QUALITY - based on groundwater samples collected through June 2007 forexisting wells (MW-l, Mw-2, Mw-3, Mw-5, Mw-l1, Mw-12, Mw-14, Mw-15, Mw_17,MW-l8, MW-l9, MW-26,and MW-32) andthrough December 2007 fornew wells (MW-3A;Mw-23, Mw 24,Mw-25, Mw-27,Mw-29, Mw-29, Mw-30 and Mw-31), the upperboundaryof background groundwater quality is determined
I
Class II Groundwater
Average TDS (mgll-)
DUSA Data
Class III Groundwater
Average TDS (mg/L)
DUSA Data
Well
ID N(r)
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 2,058 170 MW-3 78 5,277 263MW-l1 71 1,844 178 MW-12 61 3,894 241MW-30 10 1,745 87 MW-14 5l ? 5q,176
MW-ls 47 3.857 243
MW-I7 22 4.444 321
MW-18("18 2.605 297
MW-l9("22 2.457 900
MW-20(*,2 5,610 57
MW-22\*)2 7.365 361
MW-3A 9 5.547 t29
MW-23 10 3.443 244
MW-24 t0 4,116 117
MW-25('ii 2.843 67
MW-26(o,12 3.1 55 65
I||4W-27\',)l0 1,019 28
MW-28 l1 3.677 87
MW-29 8 4,380 27
MW-31(10 r,265 50
MW-32(o)12 3,669 247
on a well-by-well basis, pursuant to
G*r.B-&r-s
PermitNo. UGW370004
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidance, and documented in the Permittee,s
background groundwater quality reports dated October 2007 andApril 30, 2008.
C. Ppnun LnflTs - 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 Compliance Limits (GWCL) defined inTable 2,
below. Groundwater quality at the site must at all times meet all the applicable GWeS and
ad hoc GWQS defined in R3l7-6 even though this permit does not require monitoring for
each specifi c contaminant.
Tailings Cell Operations - only 11.e.(2)by-productmaterial authorizedbyUtahRadioactive
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, arfiifreeze,
pesticides, or any other contaminant not defined as l le.(2) material is prohibited.
1.
2.
-).
rlO
(,
q
w=
EU
F]O
U
d rq N c{nN
h\o \o
F
€
q?
r *ro,
\aN \*r !N C !1
N
v)
N N r
rl€
N\o
.o
r
6
6{
^l
$
EU
,.1O>
vlN ol ^i
n\a \o F-N N €
r !
,a
v?
N an
nN O r N F-on
5
d
dE
ZC
j
Q>N r q€\o r
oq€€O
N
N €r
o
N 6i ^i r
r)
\o x c.l
N
$
7
o
AC
>frzY
-
)q\o c.i N 6i N F.
d
\ad d\e=
nN N
sf,r N \r q .!r tr.-n N h x \o
oi
€N
N
)c
hE*a
'c)
,.1QF\,
N
J
laal a-d 6i€N F-
N
sr,:r ++N N -
<t r
@
r€i r q c.l r r (.!N
ra
N V,d
!,]€
6
Nn t--
€rv?
d
U)
-.1
C)Q
(g
aC
e!>\o N N .')€\o E
r6N 6€R
C t--6i tg\6i N
r*
r€
:F !t€v
I
r?E
>>v'ayz-
,l(,*(,:cl N r\ott {a t-.N+
r cl+
r O d
tr!
01
rit-.C6 N nal
n€€Io N
\o \o€
oQtro
d
a5Etu.c =
r|
N
N
N |aal h\o ra
F
\o\€r N
\o\aN €t€N
el
6 ^i
rl
N c.l h
I€
\o
n N
F-\f,
6i *
oocd
oEd
d0
r-E
E()
!l(J
>
|a
.I \o
h iaN n
N rrl
la€h\o r ra
F !l N n V n iri-$ra h 6
d n Ui |a
d u [t
Vu ra€*F(F.
EO
!(J
>oq
N N nd r O
a at C
x
a
N N 6i O
N a .i O
h
v?a
€\\o
r +\t
N
Nnr
.J\t
€E
AC
.lU>
rn N N 6i O o \o
€
+
$r N N q
t
O
N r o
^i d \i N
rl
@
c..l
aO
.l3
€\*F-\@Oi
,tz(i
c.i nN
nN cl$
!N€N tr
g\
U?
ra
01@N d 6i N (\
sf,
6c]r \r N .l r r c.l m
d t,
d
€
F-F-€
\o
NN
€€
F.-a
(a
N
O +r !
d :f,r \o
C d
sl
r r
e
\f,
x +
oU
z
d
(!
z
o
Z
+o
Z
o
o om
EdQ
I
O
(o
ooJ o 63
o
o
6a Io
2.
o2
ojoz
oo7a
o
77 F F
6
6
o
N
6
I
q
oo
q
oN
o
Ir.l
E
o
o
!\
€p
o
O
oI(
o
cc !6q
o
o
.C
o
@
x
a
o
o
rL
Jb
oo
!
a
,E
-
a
o
d
h
Ib
7'
B
)o!(5
c.i
.o(dF
Egd h
ol c.tr+nr o t r
a+6 N +N €cl
l:]J
dl
!t
Doi!
oJ
U
bn
o\
^i c.j nol V,
v?€
n N
F..o
N
€o\
ffiE
md |a
d la V€h€t,
ra
hr t m t'-.n n*=lul N
|a
\a ra
N d la
ii*
h{i
N =N N
6i 1 N 6i€N c-at \N \f,rd!t
d
€ffi r c.i O cl t-.F.q N N
o h€
h\o
h Gd dF
a
o\
ffiE
N r|
N \o E r
!d{Od N N rl
!l:ll
!?N N N
h€
€$€
!
€tc\:f,t
N cl rr+r
rr N ra4 +
H!N
nN
\et ^i
o N
h€
\o
F v.d
Nra*
ffiE
N N 6i
V€6
og
r\o.
N
r N !
oq*
l=lul
N N
O F Ui N
€
slr6
N €
\o
6i€
N
o\
+€N
ra V ia ia\o Q€n iaF
€*ia rad r)tfI
ia€ffi lfi d d
n m r hat n ra
a-
n\d
dt h ra
g\
\CF6
ffiH
F-N v,)€
N\o
+
r
r N N h*
5
bld
nol
la€
n€
\a r r
6 {d
N !N €€r N N r
G
N
El:t
i
^l
!?N F
m
v)N
ra-
ra\o
!
V,d
r€
iqq hl
N N v?
N €\o r :
6 N !
\e\o
\os =lul
€6i nN N
rlN ^i N
i
qo
N a€$r
Na€
_tdbt
z
d
o
z
+o6
z
+r 6 s O N
a-#
I
{
O O
!?€$
lsl$d'
I
oI
,
o d(J
o
O O :J 3
o
0
a
)
oo
o3
z
6*oz
ooa
o
7D
=
=F
d5 ,l,l$
oE
o
oN
o
v
E,I
o
o
a
N
oE
o
!B
o
oo Ic
o
G
o
o
o
U
q
d
z
F
+cL
!i
o:
o
o
o
dI
o
o
X
a
or
a
o
'E
L
3h
U)
F
IU
(,
v)
FloQ
(!
trG)
(!3
B
)olrO
O)
oU
N
O
(d3
_go iNE ?€t6 EOE6 >q o;E $Ifstr EEt.s"- g?5.Et! EiseE€ 4 9€ r at 9r! E i#5 :.EEf;UE 5;OETE E5.E E E€ =E i3€E F iSBE_ _"_-)Eo G;i_ or __*E E? .E EA:n €3H*E
.9 E:d- *
s *F =giis* EE .BiHs:o yi.=.9 9'/;.8 nc4.E;E .qbbgi
itEE E€EE*
fE qe E€:EgEE 5g ae'se=6tri- >Ptr.:
{s E€ E-95€i
;flEE gAE;i
eEi'g EEE:rnE:€E El gi$sirs s FIsi= a* sHE 5F>E:ieEff r!Esj;
;EiEE€H3ii:IggieF:tEJ=E
I€iEEgg $iIE
Eexs€ gEIiEE
$€g;ssE#=;s
I sE?E E iiilg
; eeE=fi tEife€68;f,*€giEH;?EE*EgT]ggAPX6dEEEzbE9g=Er!)fi-'=E
?iiEEEEH=gE
ErEu€f;*=Eg.
gjSg:ggEi$E
>;;;;r..=.s3ffEzOO Oo b; H 1t 8oE}>}}E.EE]EEFooi:or===';E<5gAiAz3s>&,8
flsiiiisaE=Hx.Et^^^El *NO$h€r€
art I.D
PermitNo. UGW370004
D. DIscneRGE MINIMZATION AND Bpsr AvITLABLE Tscrnqorocy STeNoARDS - the tailings
disposal facility must be built, operated, and maintained according to the following Discharge
Minimization Technology (DMT) and Best Available Technology (BAT) standards:
1. DMT Design Standards for Existing Tailings Cells 1, 2, and 3 - shall be based on existing
construction as described by design and construction information provided bythe permittee,
as summarizedin Table 3 below for Tailings Cells 1,2, and3:
Footnotes:
abl
2)
4)
l) D'Appolonia Consulting Engineers, Inc., June, 1979, "Engineers Report Tailings Management System White Mesa Uranium project
Blanding' Utah Energy Fuels Nuclear, [nc. Denver, Colorado", unpublished consultants report, approximately 50 pp.,2 frgures, I 6 sheets, 2appendices.
D'Appolonia Consulting Engineers, Inc., February, 1982, "Construction Report Initial Phase - Tailings Management System White MesaUranium Project Blanding, Utah Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. Denver, Colorado", unpublished cons,rltarts repo.t, approximately 7 pp., 6 tables,13 figures, 4 appendices.
D'Appolonia Consulting Engineers, Inc., May, 1981, "Engineer's Report Second Phase Desigr - Cell 3 Tailings Management System WhiteMesa Uranium Prqiect Blanding, Utah Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. Denver, Colorado", unpublished consultanti report, -approximately 20 pp., Ifigure, 5 sheets, and 3 appendices.
Energy Fuels Nuclear, [nc., March, 1983, "Construction Report Second Phase Tailings Management System white Mesa Uranium project
Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc.", unpublished company report, 18 pp., 3 tables, 4 figures, S appendices.
a) Tailings cell 1 - consisting of the following major design elements:
Cross-valley Dike and East Dike - constructed on the south side of the pond ofnative
granular materials with a 3:1 slope, a 20-foot crest width, and a crest elevation of
about 5,620 ft above mean sea level (amsl). A dike of similar design was constructed
on the east margin of the pond, which forms a continuous earthen structure with the
south dike. The remaining interior slopes are cut-slopes at 3:1 grade.
Liner System - including a single 30 mil PVC flexible mernbrane liner (FML)
constructed of solvent welded seams on a prepared sub-base. Top elevation of the
FML liner was 5,618.5 ft amsl on both the south dike and the north cut-slope. A
protective soil cover layer was constructed immediately over the FML with a
thickness of 12-inches on the cell floor and 1S-inches on the interior sideslope.
Crushed Sandstone Underlay - immediately below the FML a nominal 6-inch thick
layer of crushed sandstone was prepared and rolled smooth as a FML sub-base layer.
Beneath this underlay, native sandstone and other foundation materials were graded
to drain to a single low point near the upstream toe of the south cross-valley dike.
Inside this layer, an east-west oriented pipe was installed to gather fluids at the
upstream toe of the cross-valley dike.
l)
2)
3)
E 3. DMT neen Design and Specifications
Tailings
Cell
Report
Tvoe Engineering Report Design Fieures
Construction
Specifications
Cell I Design Jwrc,1979 D'Appolonia
Consulting Engineers" Lrc (1)
Appendix A, Sheets 2,4,8,
9, t2-t5
Appendix B
Cell2 Design J:url.e,1979 D'Appolonia
Consulting Engineers, Inc (r)Appendix A, Sheets 2,4,'7-
10. 12-15
Appendix B
As-Built February, 1 982 D'Appolonia
Consulting Engineers, Inc (2)
Figures 1,2, and ll N/A
Cell3 Design May, 1981 D'Appolonia
Consulting Engineers, Inc (3)
Sheets 2-5 Appendix B
As-Built March, 1 983 Energy Fuels
Nuclear, Inc. (a)
Figures l-4 N/A
C"n,.,
PermitNo. UGW370004
b) Tailings cell2 - which consists of the following major design elements:
Cross-valley Dike - constructed at the south margin of Cell 2 of native granular
materials with a 3 : 1 slope, a 20-foot crest width, and crest elevation of about 5,6 1 5 ft
amsl. The east and west interior slopes consist of cut-slopes with a 3:1 grade. The
Cell l southdikeformsthenorthmarginofCell 2,withacrestelevation of 5,620ft.
amsl.
Liner System - includes a single 30 mil PVC FML liner constructed of solvent
welded seams on a prepared sub-base, and overlain by a slimes drain collection
system. Top elevation of the FML liner in cell 2 is 5,615.0 ft and 5,613.5 ft amsl on
the north and south dikes, respectively. Said Cell2 FML liner is independent of all
other disposal cell FML liners. Immediately above the FML, a nominal l2-inch (cell
floor) to 1S-inch (inside sideslope) soil protective blanket was constructed of native
sands from on-site excavated soils.
Crushed Sandstone Underlay - immediatelybelow the FML a nominal 6-inch thick
layer of crushed sandstone was prepared and rolled smooth as a FML sub-base layer.
Beneath this underlay, native sandstone and other foundation materials were graded
to drain to a single low point near the upstream toe of the south cross-valley dike.
Inside this layer, an east-west oriented pipe was installed to gather fluids at the
upstream toe of the cross-valley dike.
Slimes Drain Collection System immediately above the FML a nominal l2-inch thick
protective blanket layer was constructed of native silty-sandy soil. On top of this
protective blanket, a network of 1.5-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-inchdiameter 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 granular
materials with a 3:1 slope, a 2O-foot crest width, and a crest elevation of 5,610 ft
amsl. The east and west interior slopes consist of cut-slopes with a 3:1 grade. The
Cell2 south dike forms the north margin of Cell 3, with a crest elevation of 5,615 ft
amsl.
Liner Systern - 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.
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
1)
2)
3)
4)
r)
2)
3)
art I.D
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 - immediatelyabovetheFML, anominall2-inch (cell floor) to lS-inch (inside sideslope) soil protective blanket wasconstructed of native sands from on-site excavated soils (70%) and dewatered andcyclone separated tailings sands from the mill (30%). On top of this protective
blanket, a network of 3-inch PVC perforated pipe laterals was installed onapproximately 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 tolS-inch thick berm of native granular filter media. At cell closure, leachate headinside the pipe network will be removed via a submersible pump installed inside thel2-inch diameter inclined access pipe.
Existing Tailings Cell Construction Authoized - tailings disposal in existing Tailings Cells7, 2, and 3 is authorized by this Permit as defined in Table 3 and part I.O.t, 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. Anymodification bythe Permittee to any approved engineering design parameter at these existing tailings cells
shall require prior Executive Secretary approval, modification ofthis permit, ind issuance ofa construction permit.
Existing Facility DMT Performance Standards - the Permittee shall operate and maintaincertain mill site facilities and the existing tailings disposal cells to minimize the potential forwastewater release to groundwater and the environment, including, but not limited to thefollowing additional DMT compliance measures:
a) DMT Monitoring Wells at Tailings Cell 1 - at alltimes the Permittee shall operate andmaintain Tailings Cell 1 to prevent groundwater quality conditions in any nearbymonitoring well from exceeding any Ground Water Compliance Limit established inTable 2 of this Permit.
b) Tailings cells 2 and 3 - including the following performance criteria:
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.
Monthly Slimes Drain RecoveryTest - the Permittee shall conduct amonthlyslimes
drain recovery test at each tailings cell slimes drain that meets the followingminimum requirements:
Includes a duration of at least 90-hours, as measured from the time that pumping
ceases, and
1)
2)
art I.D
Permit No. UGW370004
Achieves a stable water level at the end of the test, as measured by three
consecutive hourly water level depth measurements, with no change in water
level, as measured to the nearest 0.01 foot.
3) Annual Slimes Drain Compliance - shall be achieved when the average annual
wastewater recovery elevation in the slimes drain access pipe, as determined pursuant
to the currently approved DMT Monitoring Plan, meets the conditions in Equation 1,
below:
Equation 1:
IIE, + IEy-r + Ev-z ] / [Nr+ Ny-r -| Ny-zJ < [ Dr-r + f;.r-z+ IEv-r ] / [ Ny-r * Nv-2 + Ny-:l
Where:
E, Sum of all monthly slimes drain tailings fluid elevation measurements that meet the test
performance standards found in Part LD.3(bX2), 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
F,v-z Sum of all SDRE measurements made in the second year previous to the calendar year of
interest.
Sum of all SDRE measurements made in the third year previous to the calendar year of
\ : 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(bX2), conducted in the year preyious to the calendar year of interest.
Nv-z: Total number of SDRE tests that meet the test performance standards found in Part
I.D.3(bX2), conducted in the second year previous to the calendar year of interest.
\-:: 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 I 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_,Eu-z E"-r N,.,N N".
2010 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009
20tt 2010 2009 2009 2010 2009 2009
2012 20tt 20r0 2009 20t1 2010 2009
I%:
interest.
Failure to satis$r conditions
compliance with this Permit.
de-watering operations.
in Equation 1 shall constitute DMT failure and non-
For Cell 3, this requirement shall apply after initiation of
c)
d)
e)
lrun r.,
Permit No. UGW370004
Maximum Tailings Waste Solids Elevation - upon closure of any tailings cell, thePermittee shall ensure that the maximum elevation of the tailings waste solils does notexceed 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 in any 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 wastewaterelevation exceeds this maximum level, the Permittee shall remove the excess wastewater
and place it into containment in Tailings Cell 1 within Z2-hoursof discovery. At the timeof mill site closure, the Permittee shall reclaim and decommission the Roberts pond incompliance with a final Reclamation Plan approved under the License (hereafter
Reclamation Plan).
D Feedstock Storage Area - open-air or bulk storage of all feedstock materials at the facilityawaiting mill processing shall be limited to the eastem 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 I.D.l 1. At the time of mill site closure, thePermittee shall reclaim and decommission the Feedstock Storage Area in compliancewith an approved Reclamation plan.
in of tock the
absent of feed rnaterial in ordoto u*"thutmaterials do not encroach on the boundary of the storage area.
Table 4. Feedstock Storage Area Coordinates (l)
Corner Northins (ft)Eastins (ft)
Northeast 323,595 2,590,925
Southeast 322,140 2.s80.920
Southwest 322,140 2,590,420
West 1 322.815 2,580.4i0
West 2 323.040 2,s80.08s
West 3 323.120 2,580.085
West 4 323.315 2,580,285
West 5 323,41s 2.579.990
Northwest 323,600 2,s79.990
l) Approximate State-Plane coordinates beginning from the extreme norlheast comer and progressing clockwise aroundthe feedstock arca (ftom 6/22/0l DUSA Response, Attachment K, Site Topographic Map, Revised June, 200 L )g) Mill Site ChemicalReagent Storage - for all chernical reagents stored at existing storagefacilities and held for use in the milling process, the Permittee shall provide secondarycontainment to capture and contain all volumes of reagent(s) that -ight be released atany individual storage area. Response to spills, cleanup thereof, and r-equired reportingshall comply with the provisions of the approved Emergency Response pl* u. found inthe currently approved Stormwater Best Management Practices plan. For any newconstruction of reagent storage facilities, said secondary containment and control shall
10
4.
Part I.D
PermitNo. UGW370004
prevent any contact of the spilled or otherwise released reagent or product with the
ground surface.
Best Available Technology Requirements for New Construction - any construction,
modification, or operation of new waste or wastewater disposal, treatment, or storage
facilities shall require submittal of engineering design plans and specifications, and prior
Executive Secretaryreview and approval. All engineeringplans or specifications submitted
shall demonstrate compliance with all Best Available Technology (BAT) requirements
stipulated by the Utah Ground Water Quality Protection Regulations (UAC R317-6). Upon
Executive Secretary approval this Permit may be re-opened and modified to include any
necessary requirements.
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 June25,2007
Executive Secretary design approval letter for the relining of former existing Tailings Cell
No. 4A, and as summarized by the engineering drawings, specifications, and description in
Table 5, below:
5.
able5.a I Cell4,A neen and fications
Engineering Drawings
Name Date Revision No.Title
Sheet 1 of7 June,2007 Title Sheet
Sheet 2 of7 June 15,2007 Rev. I Site Plan
Sheet 3 of7 June 15.2007 Rev. 1 Base Gradine Plan
Sheet 4 of7 June 15.2007 Rev. 1 Pipe Layout Plan
Sheet 5 of7 June 15.2007 Rev. I Lining System Deta .sI
Sheet 6 of7 June 15,2007 Rev. 1 Lining System Details II
Sheet 7 of7 June 75,2007 Rev. I Lining System Details III
Fisue 1 Aurust.2008 Spillway Splash Pad Anchor
Englneering Specifications
Date Document Title Prepared by
Jtne,2007 Revised Technical Specifications for the
Construction of Cell4,{ Linine System
Geosyntec Consultants
June,2007 Revised Construction Quality Assurance plan for
the Construction of Cell4,{ Linins Svstem
Geosyrtec Consultants
March 27,2007 Revised Geosynthetic Clay Liner Hydration
Demonstration Work Plan (l)Geosyntec Consultants
November 27,2006 Cell Seismic Study (''MFG Consulting Scientists
and Engineers
October 6,2006 Calculation of Action Leakage Rate Through the
Leakage Detection System Underlying a
Geomembrane Liner
Geosyntec Consultants
Jlune22,2006 Slope Stability Analysis Cell 4,{ - Interim
Conditions
Geosyntec Consultants
J:une23.2006 Settlement Evaluation of Berms ('Geosrmtec Consultants
Auzust 22.2006 Pipe Strength Calculations Geosyntec Consultants
September 27.2007 DMC Cell4A - cCL Hydration Geos\mtec Consultants
Footrotes:
l) As qualified by conditions found in May 2, 2007 Division of Radiation control letter.2) As clarified by February 8,2007 Division ofRadiation control Round 6 Interrogatory.
11
Part I.D
Permit No. UGW370004
Tailings Cell 44 Design and Construction - approved by the Executive Secretary will consistof the following major elements:
a)Dikes - consisting of existing earthen ernbankments of compacted soil, constructed bythePermittee between 1989 andl990, and composed of four dikes, each including a 15-footwide road at the top (minimum). on the north, east, and south margins these likes haveslopes of 3H to lV. The west dike has an interior slope of2H to lV. width ofthese dikesvaries; each has a minimum crest width of at least 15 feet to support an access road. Basewidth also varies from S9-feet on the east dike (with no exterior ernbankment),to 2ll-feet at the west dike.
Foundation - including existing subgrade soils over bedrock materials. Foundationpreparation included excavation and removal of contaminated soils, compaction ofimported soils to amaximum drydensity of 9}%o.Floorof Cell4Ahas an average slopeof roh that grades from the northeast to the southwest corners.
Tailings Capacity - the floor and inside slopes of Cell4,{ encompass about 40 acres andhave a maximum capacity of about 1.6 million cubic yards oftailings material storage (asmeasured below the required 3-foot freeboard).
d) Liner and Leak Detection Systems - including the following layers, in descending order:
1) Primary Flexible Membrane Liner (FML) - consisting of impermeable 60 mil high
density polyethylene (HDPE) membrane that extends across both the entire cell floor
and the inside side-slopes, and is anchored in a trench at the top of the dikes on allfour sides. The primary FML will be in direct physical contact with the tailingsmaterial over most of the Cell 4,{ floor area. In other locations, the primary FML willbe in contact with the slimes drain collection systern (discussed bllow;."
2) Leak Detection System - includes a permeable HDPE geonet fabric that extends
across the entire area under the primary FML in Cell 44, and drains to a leakdetection sump in the southwest corner. Access to the leak detection sump is via an
I 8-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 agravel filter set in the leak detection sump, having dimensions of 10 feet by 10 feet by2 feet deep. In turn, the gravel filter layer will be enclosed in an envelope ofgeotextile fabrig. Thepurpose ofboth the gravel and geotextile fabric is to serve as afilter.
3) Secondary FML - consisting of an impermeable 60-mil HDPE membrane foundimmediately below the leak detection geonet. Said FML also extends across theentire Cell 44 floor, up the inside side-slopes and is also anchored in a trench at thetop of all four dikes.
4) Geosynthetic Clay Liner - consisting of a manufactured geosynthetic clay liner (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,thePermittee shall demonstrate that the GCL has achieved a moisture content of at least50%by weight. This item is a revised requirement per DRC letter to DUSA datedSeptember 28,2007.
b)
c)
l2
e)
G*,
Permit No. UGW370004
Slimes Drain Collection System - including a two-part system of strip drains and
perforated collection pipes both installed immediately above the primary FML, as
follows:
1) Horizontal Strip Drain System - is installed in a herringbone pattern across the floor
of Cell 4A that drain to a "backbone" of perforated collection pipes. These strip
drains are made of a prefabricated two-part geo-composite drain material (solid
polymer drainage strip) core surrounded by a, envelope of non-woven geotextile
filter fabric. The strip drains are placed immediately over the primary FML on 50-
foot centers, where they conduct fluids downgradient in a southwesterly direction to a
physical and hydraulic connection to the perforated slimes drain collection pipe. A
series of continuous sand bags, filled with filter sand cover the strip drains. The sand
bags are composed of a woven polyester fabric filled with well graded filter sand to
protect the drainage system from plugging.
2) Horizontal Slimes Drain Collection Pipe System - includes a "backbone" piping
system of4-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 overlainby
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. [n 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 comer downhill to the far southwest corner of
Cell 4,{ 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 Cell4A at the southwest corner, above the primary FML.
Said pipe then merges with another horizontal pipe of equivalent diameter and
material, where it is enveloped by gravel and woven geotextile that serves as a
cushion to protect the primary FML. A reducer connects the horizontal 18-inch pipe
with the 4-inch SDC pipe. At some future time, a pump will be set in this 1S-inch
pipe and used to remove tailings wastewaters for purposes of de-watering the tailings
cell.
Cell 4,A North Dike Splash Pads - three 2O-foot wide splash pads will be constructed on
the north dike to protect the primary FML from abrasion and scouring by tailings slurry.
These pads will consist of an extra layer of 60 mil HDPE membrane that will be installed
in the anchor trench and placed down the inside slope of Cell 44, from the top of the
dike, under the inlet pipe, and down the inside slope to a point 5-feet beyond the toe of
the slope.
Cell 4.A 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 4,A.. All stormwater runoff and tailings wastewaters
not retained in Cells 2 and 3, will be managed and contained in Cell4,{, including the
Probable Maximum Precipitation and flood event.
s)
13
G*,
Permit No. UGW370004
6. BAT Perfornance Standards for Tailings Cell 4,A. - the Permittee shall operate and maintain
Tailings Cell 4,A so as to prevent release of wastewater to groundwater and the environment
in accordance with the currently approved Cell 4,A. BAT, Monitoring Operations and
Maintenance Plan. Any failure to achieve or maintain the required BAT performance
standards shall constitute a violation of the Permit and shall be reported to the Executive
Secretary in accordance with Part I.G.3. PThedanh?erformance standards for Tailines Cell
4,{ shall include the following:
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 transducer. At all times the Permittee shall operate
the LDS pump and transducer in a horizontal position at the lowest point of the LDS
sump floor.
b) LDS Maximum Allowable Daily Leak Rate - shall not exceed 24,160 gallons/day.
c) Slimes Drain Monthly and Annual Average Recovery Head Criteria - after the Permittee
initiates pumping conditions in the slimes drain layer in Cell 4A, the Permittee will
provide: 1) continuous declining fluid heads in the slimes drain layer, in a manner
equivalent to the requirements found in Part I.D.3(b), 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.
d) Maximum Weekly Wastewater Level - under no circumstance shall the freeboard be less
then 3-feet in Cell 4A, as measured from the top of the upper FML.
7 . Definition of 1 1e.(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 1 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.
l. 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 systern at each tailings cell will comply with all requirements of an approved
Reclamation Plan, and will for a period of not less than 200 years meet the following
minimum performance requirements:
a) Minimize infiltration of precipitation or other surface water into the tailings, including,
but not limited to the radon barrier,
b) Prevent the accumulation of leachate head within the tailings waste layer that could rise
above or over-top the maximum FML liner elevation internal to any disposal cell, i.e.
create a "bathtub" effect, and
c) Ensure that groundwater quality at the compliance monitoring wells does not exceed the
Ground Water Quality Standards or Ground Water Compliance Limits specified in Part
I.C.1 and Table 2 of this Permit.
t4
or,n,
PermitNo. UGW370004
9. Facility Reclamation Requirements - upon commencement of decommissioning, the
Permittee 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 and
specifications in an approved Reclamation Plan. The Executive Secretaryreseryes th; right
to require modifications of the Reclamation Plan forpurposes 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 Managernent and Spill Control Requirements - the Permittee will manage allcontact and non-contact stormwater and control contaminant spills at the facility in
accordance with the currently approved Stormwater Best Managernint 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 R317-6-6.3(G) and R3l7-6-6.4(c),
b) Prevent, control and contain spills of stored reagents or other chemicals at the mill site,
c) Cleanup spills of stored reagents or other chemicals at the mill site immediately upondiscovery, and
d) Report reagent spills or other releases at the mill site to the Executive Secretary in
accordance with UAC 19-5-114.
Reconstruction of stormwater management and/or chemical reagent storage facilities,
existing at the time of original Permit issuance, maybe required bythe Executive Secretaryafter occurrence of a major spill or catastrophic failure, pursuant to part fV.N.3 of thisPermit.
I 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 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 requirLents:
A storage area composed ofa hardened engineered surface ofasphalt or concrete, and
A storage area designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with engineering
plans and specifications approved in advance by the Executive Secretary.-All such
engineering plans or specifications submitted shall demonstrate compliance with part
I.D.4, and
A storage area that provides containment berms to control stormwater run-on andrun-off and
c)
d)
1)
2)
3)
15
Part IJD
PermitNo. UGW370004
4) Stormwater drainage works approved in advance by the Executive Secretary, or
5) Other storage facilities and means approved in advance by the Executive Secretary.
12. BAT Desiprr Standards for Tailings Cell 48 - the BAT desien standard for Tailines Cell 48
shall and constructed i ance with ts as summari
the eneineering drawines. specifications. and description in Table 6. below:
Table 6
1' Enqineerine drawine Sheet 6 of 8 is approved subiect to conditions and requirements outlined in part LH.l1 of
this Permit.
al ln Ce ns Desi 1ons
Enqineering Drawings
Name Date Revision No.Title
Sheet 1 ofS January 2009 Rev. 1 Cover Sheet
Sheet 2 of8 January 2009 Rev. 1 Site Plan
Sheet 3 of 8 January 2009 Rev. I Base Gradirtg Plan
Sheet 4 of 8 January 2009 Rev. 1 Pipe Lavout and Details
Sheet 5 of 8 December 2007 Rev. 0 Linine System Details I
Sheet 6 of8 u January 2009 Rev.Linins Svstem Details II
Sheet 7 of 8 Januarv 2009 Rev. I Lining System Details III
Sheet 8 of8 January 2009 Rev. 1 Llqus System Details IV
Fisure 1 January 2009 Mill Site Drainage Basins (supportins reference)
Enqineering Specifi cations
Date Document Title Prepared by
January 2009 Slope Stability Analysis Calculation Packase Geostmtec ConsuLltants
January 2009 Seismic Deformation Analvsis Calculation
Package
Geos)mtec Consurltants
January 2009 Revised Pipe Streneth Analysis Calculation Geosvntec Consu,ltants
January 2009 Revised Comparison of Flow Thoush Compacted
Clay Liner and Geosvnthetic Clav Liner
Calculation Packase
Geosrmtec Consu.ltants
January 2009 Revised Action T eakage Rate Calculation Packase Geosyntec Consultants
Auzust 2009 Blasting - Locations and Profiles. Attachment:
Figures I and 2
Geoslntec Consultants
Aueust 2009 (Revised) Technical Specifications, with the
exception of Sgction 02200 (Earthwork)
Geostmtec Consultants
Aueust 2009 Cell 48 Capacitv Calculations Geos\mtec Consultants
Aueust 2009 Revised Cushion Fabric Calculations
Auqust 2009 Construction Oualitv Assurance Plan for the
Construqtion of Cell48 Linins Svstem
GeosJyntec Consultants
September 2009 (Revised) Technical Specification Section 02200
(Earthwork)
Geoslmtec Consultants
Aueust 6. 2009
Blast Plan. KGL and Associates and Blast Plan
Review. GeosJmtec Consultants letter dated
September 10,2009
KGL and Associates and
Geosrmtec Consultants
September 2009 Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) Event
Computation
Geos]mtec Consultants
January 2009 Slope Stability Analysis Calculation Packase Geoswtec Consultants
t6
Or"n,.,
PermitNo. UGW370004
Tailines Cell 48 Desiqn and Construction - approved bl/ the Executive Secretary will ..rrirtof the followine maior elements:
a) Dikes - consistinE of newly constructed dikes on the south and west side of th"
""11. "u"hincludine a 20-foot wide road at the top (minimum) to support an access road[. The
.qradine plan for the Cell 48 excavation includes interior slopes of2H to 1V. The exterior
slopes of the southem and westem dikes will have t).pical slopes of 3H to 1V. Li-it"d
Dortions ofthe Cell 48 interior sideslopes in the northwest comer and south"urt.o-"r of
th9&11, (where the slimes drain and leak detection sump will be located will also have aslope of 3H to lV. The base width of the southem dikes varies from ar**i-ut"lr 92feet at the western end to approximatelv 190 feet at the eastem end of the dik". with ro
"*t..io..-burk-"nt p."r"rt on uny oth.. rid" of th" ..11.
b) Foundation - includine existine subqrade soils over bedlrock materials. F.urdation
DreDaration included excavation and removal of contaminated soils. co-Ou.tio, o?imported soils to a maximum dry densit], of 90% at a moisture content bet*""r, +3yo urrd-3% of optimum moisture content. as determined bvASTM D-1557. The floor ofcell 48
has an average slope of 1%o that grades from the northwest corner to the s.uther.t ..m.r.
c) Tailines CaPacity - the floor and inside slopes of Cell48 encomoass about 44 u.r"r. urrdthe cell will have a water surface area of 40 acres and a maximum capacitv of ubout 1gmillion cubic vards of tailines material storaee (as measured b;lo; th;G;red 3_foot
freeboard).
d) Liner and Leak Detection Svstems - includine the following lavers. in desc.rdir*..d..,
1.) Primary Flexible Membrane Liner (FML) _ consistins of 60_mil hieh densitvpolyethylene (HDPE) membrane that extends across both the entire cel-Eor and theinside side-slopes. and is anchored in a trench at the top of the dikes on aI fbur sides
The primary FML will be in direct phvsical contact with the tailines material ovEmost of the Cell 48 floor area. In other locations. the primary FML will be in contaclwith the slimes drain collection s)rstem (discussed below).
2) Leak Detection System - includes a permeable HDPE seonet that extends across theentire area under the primary FML in Cell 48. and drains to a leak det..tion ,u-, inthe southeast corner. Access to the leak detection sump is via an 18in.h ir.id.diameter (ID) PVC pipe placed down the inside slope. located between the primary
and secondarv FML liners. At its base this pipe will be surrounded with a sravel filter
set in a sump havine dimensions of 15 feet by 10 feet bv 2 feet d;Alhalcontains aleak detection s)rstem sump a.ea. In turn. the eravel filtei lal/er will be encl,osed in an
enveloPe of eeotextile fabric. The purpose of both the pravel and eeotextile f.brir itto serve as a filter.
3) Secondarv FML - consistine of a 60-mil HDPE membrane found immediatell/below
the leak detection eeonet. Said FML also extends across the entire(€ll48 floor. upthe inside side-slopes and is also anchored in a trench at the top of all fb* dik"r. -
4) GeosYnthetic Clay Liner - consistine of a manufactured eeosvnthetic cla)r liner (SCL)
composed o{ O.2-inch of low permeability bentonite cla}, centered and stitched
between two laYers of eeotextile. Prior to disposal of any wastewater in Cell 48. the
o
t7
ar*,,
Permit No. UGW370004
Permittee shall demonstrate that the GCL has achieved a moisture content of at least
50% bv weieht.
e) Slimes Drain Collection System - includine a two-part system of strip drains and
perforated collection pipes both installed immediatelv above the primary FML. as
follows:
1) Horizontal Strip Drain Svstem - is installed in a herrinqbone pattern across the floor
of Cell 4B that drain to a "backbone" of perforated collection pipes. These strip
drains are made of a prefabricated two-part eeo-composite drain material (solid
Dolymer drainage strip) core surrounded blu an envelope of non-woven qeotextile
filter fabric. The strip drains are placed immediatelv over the primary FML on 50-
foot centers. where they conduct fluids downpradient in a southwesterl-''r direction to a
Dhvsical and hydraulic connection to the perforated slimes drain collection pipe. A
series of continuous sand baes" filled with filter sand cover the strip drains. The sand
baes are comoosed of a woven polvester fabric filled with well qraded filter sand to
protect the drainaqe system from plugqing.
2) Horizontal Slimes Drain Collection Pipe S)rstem - includes a ,,backbone,'piping
sYstem of 4-inch ID Schedule 40 oerforated PVC slimes drain collection (SDC) pipe
found at the downeradient end of the strip drain lines. This pipe is in tum overlain bv
a berm of gravel that runs the entire diaeonal length of the cell. surrounded bl/ a
qeotextile fabric cushion in immediate contact with the primary FML. In turn. the
Pravel is overlain bv a layer of non-woven eeotextile to serve as an additional filter
material. This perforated collection pipe serves as the "backbone" to the slimes drain
system and runs from the far northwest comer downhill to the far southeast comer of
Cell 48 where it joins the slimes drain access pipe.
3) Slimes Drain Access Pipe - consistine of an 18-inch ID Schedule 40 PVC pipe placed
down the inside slope of Cell 48 at the southeast comer. above the primary FML.
Said pipe then merees with another horizontal pipe of equivalent diameter and
material. where it is enveloped by eravel and woven eeotextile that serves as a
cushion to protect the primarv FML. A reducer connects the horizontal 18-inch oiE
with the 4-inch SDC pipe. At some future time. a pump will be set in this 1g-inch
DiDe and used to remove tailings wastewaters for purposes ofde-waterins the tailin$
cell.
fl Cell 48 North and East Dike Splash Pads - Nine 20-foot-wide splash pads will be
constructed on the north and east dikes to protect the primarv FML from abrasion and
scourine by tailings slurry. These pads will consist of an extra lal/er of 60 mil HDPE
membrane that will be installed in the anchor trench and placed down the inside slope of
Cell 48. from the top of the dike. under the inlet pipe. and down the inside slope to apoint at least 5 feet onto the Cell 48 floor beluond the toe of the slope.
A'l Cell 48 Emereency Spillwav - a concrete lined spillway will be constructed near the
southeastern corner of the east dike to allow emereency runoff from Cell 4,{ into Cell
48. This soillway will be limited to a 6-inch reinforced concrete slab. with a welded wire
fabric installed within it at its midsection. set atop a cushion geotextile placed directlly
over the primarv FML in a 4-foot deep trapezoidal channel. A 100-foot wide. 60-mil
HDPE membrane splash pad will be installed beneath the emereencl/ spillwav. No other
18
op*r.D&r.E
Permit No. UGW370004
or overflow will be
in Cells 2
Cell48. Al runoff
contained4,{willbe
imum P ion and flood
13. B Cell ermittee shal maln
Taili
m
tain
rent
ved
of wastewa
T ions and Mai
uant to Part I-s Permit.to achi intain the reoui
standard
Execut
48 shall include the followine:
itute a
with Part I.G.
he Permit
stand Cell
ection S axlmum head in
exceed 1 lowest lower flexibl
DS
liner
t all times th shall o
in a horizontal position at the lowest point of the LDS sump floor.
es Drain Annual A - after the P
1n in the slim 11 4 ittee
contin drain I manner
ulrem in Part I.D.3 maxlmum feet
in the tailines (as measured from the lowest point of upper flexible membrane liner) in
5.5 vears or less.
d. Maximum W Wastewater no ci shall the
E. GnouNo WarER COMPLIANCE AND Tpcrnqorocy PERFoRMANCE MoNrroRrNG - 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 ofprocess solutions, and monitor
and keep records of the operation of the facility, as follows:
1. Routine Groundwater Compliance Monitoring - the Permittee shall monitor upgradient,
lateral gradient, and downgradient groundwater monitoring wells completed in the shallow
aquifer in the vicinity of all potential discharge sources that could affect local groundwater
conditions at the facility, as follows:
a) Ground Water Monitoring Quality Assurance Plan - all groundwater monitoring and
analysis performed under this Permit shall be conducted in accordance with a eualityAssurance Plan (QAP) currently approved by the Executive Secretary. Any non-
conformance with QAP requirements in a given quarterly groundwater monitoring period
then 3-feet in cell 48" as measured from the top of the upper FML.
t9
Orun, u
Permit No. UGW370004
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.l.
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 velocityhas
been found by the Executive Secretary to be equal to or greater than l0 feet/year. For
purposes of this Permit, quarterly monitoring is required at the following wells:
1) Upgradient Wells: none
2) Lateral or Downgradient wells: Mw- 1 1 , Mw- I 4, Mw-25, Mw-26 (formerly TW4-l5), MW-30, and MW-31.
3) Futu 48 Down Wells alled -monitorin
within r davs ofi tion of water w-33
c)
d)
this P il
Semi-annual Monitoring - the Permittee shall monitor on a semi-annual basis allmonitoring wells listed in Table 2 ofthis Permit where local groundwater average linearvelocity has been found by the Executive Secretary to be less than l0 feet/yiar. For
purposes of this Permit, semi-annual monitoring is required at the following wells:
1) Upgradient Wells: MW-l, MW-18, MW-19, and,MW-27.
2) Lateral or Downgradient wells: Mw-2, Mw-3, Mw-3A, Mw-5, Mw-12, Mw-l5,
Mw-17, Mw-23, Mw-24, Mw-28, Mw-29, and MW-32 (formerly Tw4-17)=,
Compliance Monitoring Parameters - all groundwater samples collected shall be analyzedfor the following parameters:
1) Field Parameters - depth to groundwater, pH, temperature, specific conductance, and
redox potential (Eh).
2) Laboratory Parameters
i. GWCL Parameters - all contaminants specified inTable2.
ii. General lnorganics - chloride, sulfate, carbonate, bicarbonate, sodium, potassium,
magnesium, calcium, and total anions and cations.
e) Special Provisions for Groundwater Monitoring - the Permittee shall ensure that allgroundwater monitoring conducted and reported complies with the followingrequirements:
1) DepthtoGroundwaterMeasurernents-shallalwaysbemadetothenearest0.0l foot.
2) Minimum Detection Limits - all groundwater quality analyses reported shall have aminimum detection limit or reporting limit that is less than its iespective Ground
Water Compliance Limit concentration defined in Table 2.
3) Gross Alpha Counting Variance - all gross alpha analysis shall be reported with anerror 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 orl"r. thanlo%of the
reported activity concentration. An error term may be greater than 2Oo/o of the
20
reported activity concentration when the sum of the activity concentration and errorterm 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 l.t
Quarter 2008 groundwater event the Permittee shall implement a quarterly groundwater
sampling program. Said sampling shall comply with the folowing permit requirements:
a) Routine groundwater compliance monitoring requirements of part I.E.1.
b) Well monitoring procedure requirernents of part I.E.5.
c) After completion of eight consecutive quarters of groundwater sampling and analysis ofMW-20 and MW-22,the Permittee shall submit a Background Report tlat will include:
1) Data preparation and statistical analysis of groundwater quality data, including butnot limited to: evaluation of data characteristics and internal data consistencratreatment ofnon-detectable values, and statistical methods rrs"4 Thes" statistics shallbe calculated using the Decision Tree/Flowchart used for the previous BackgroundReports that was conditionally approved by the DRC on August 24,2007.
2) Aquifer test results to determine local hydraulic conductivity andother aquiferproperties at wells MW-20 andMW_22.
3) Average linear groundwater velocity calculated for MW-20 and MW-22, based onwell specific hydraulic conductivity, hydraulic gradient, and effective aquiferporosity.
d) The said report shall be submitted by March 1,2010. After review of this report theExecutive Secretarywill evaluate ifwells Mw-20 and MW-22 shouldbe 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 -22should be added as poc
wells, the Executive Secretary will re-open this Permit and establish Groundwatercompliance Limits in Table 2 for wells Mw-20 andMW-22.
3. Groundwater Head Monitoring - on a quarterly basis and atgroundwater monitoring required by part I.E.l, the permittee
groundwater in the following wells and/or piezometers:
Part I.E
Permit No. UGW370004
the same frequency as
shall measure depth to
a)
b)
c)
Point of Compliance Wells - identified in Table 2 and,Part I.E.1 of this permit.
P-I,P-2, P-3, P-4, P-5.
Existing Monitoring Wells - MW-20 andMW-22.
Contaminant Investigation Wells - any well required by the Executive Secretary as a partof a contaminant investigation or groundwateiconeciive action.
e) Any other wells or piezometers required by the Executive Secretary.
Groundwater Monitoring Well Design and Construction
monitoring wells installed at the facility shall comply
construction criteria:
d)
4.Criteria - all new groundwater
with the following design and
21
a) Located as close as practical to the contamination source, tailings cell, or other potentialorigin of groundwater pollution.
b) Screened and completed in the shallow aquifer.
c) Designed and constructed in compliance with UAC R3 17-6-6.3(I)(6), including the EpARCRA Ground Water Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance Document,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 ofpermit issuance, all monitoringshall be conducted by the Permittee in conformance with the followirrg procedures:
a) Sampling - gab samples shall be taken of the groundwater, only after adequate removalor 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 theState of Utah to perform the tests required.
Damage to Monitoring Wells - if anymonitor well is damaged or is otherwise renderedinadequate for its intended purpose, the permittee shall notif,, the Executive Secretary inwriting within five calendar days of discovery.
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. de^permitteeshall make and preserve on-site written records of such equipment calibration inaccordance with Part II.G and H of this Permit. Said records shall identiff 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 andSprings in the vicinity of the white Mesa uranium ivtitt. saia -oritorirg shall include, butis not limited to:
a) Field Measurements - including: pH, temperature, and specific conductivity=;
b) water Quality Sampling and Analysis - the permittee shall collectperform laboratory analysis of alr water quality parameters identifiedPermit; and
c) Certified Laboratory Analysis - all laboratory analysis will be conducted by a Utahcertified laboratory.
d) Analytical Methods - all laboratory analysis shall be conducted using analyical methodslisted in the currently approved eAp pursuant to part I.E.1 of this permit.
e) Minimum Detection Limits - all seeps or springs water quality analyses reported shallhave a minimum detection limit or reportinglimit thai is less than or equal to therespective:
d)
e)
Part I.E
Permit No. UGW370004
grab samples and
in Table 2 of this
22
Part I.E
Permit No. UGW370004
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: I0 mglL,l mg/L, and I mglL,
respectively.
D Quality Control Samples - the Permittee will conduct quality control (QC) sampling and
analysis as apart of all seeps and springs sampling, in accordance with the requirements
of Section 4.3 of the currently approved QAP; pursuant to Part I.E.1 of this Permit. Said
QC samples shall include, but are not limited to: trip blanks, duplicate samples, and
equipment rinse blanks.
g) Prior Notification - at least 15 calendar days before any fieldwork or water quality sample
collection, the Permittee shall provide written notice to allow the Executive Secretaryto
observe or split sample any or all seeps or springs.
DMT Performance Standards Monitoring - the Permittee shall perform technology
performance monitoring in accordance with the currently approved DMT Monitoring plan
to determine if DMT is effective in minimizing and controlling the release of contaminants
pursuant to the provisions of Parts I.D.1 and I.D.3 of this Permit, including, but not limited
to the following activities:
a) Weekly Tailings Wastewater Pool Elevation Monitoring: Cells 1 and 3 - the permittee
shall monitor and record weekly the elevation of wastewater in Tailings Cells 1 and 3 to
ensure compliance with the maximum wastewater elevation criteria mandated by
Condition 10.3 of the License. Said measurements shall be made from a wastewater level
gauge or elevation survey to the nearest 0.01 foot.
b) Monthly Slimes Drain Water Level Monitoring: Cells 2 and 3 - the Permittee shall
monitor and record monthly the depth to wastewater in the slimes drain access pipes as
described in Part I.D.3 of this Permit and the currently approved DMT Monitoring plan
at Tailings Cells 2 and 3 to determine the recovery head. For pu{poses of said
monitoring, the Permittee shall at eachtailings cell:
1) Perform at least 12 separate slimes drain recovery tests at each disposal cell in each
calendar year that meet the requirements of part I.D.3,
2) Designate, operate, maintain, and preserve one water level measuring point at the
centerline of the slimes drain access pipe that has been surveyed and certified by a
Utah licensed engineer or land surveyor,
3) Make all slimes drain recovery head test (depth to fluid) measurements from the
same designated water level measuring point, and
4) Record and report all fluid depth measurements to the nearest 0.01 foot.
5) For Cell 3 these requirements shall apply upon initiation of tailings de-watering
operations.
c) Weekly Wastewater Level Monitoring: Roberts Pond - the Permittee shall monitor and
record weekly wastewater levels at the Roberts Pond to determine compliance with the
23
l.**
Permit No. UGW370004
DMT operations standards in Part I.D.3. Said measurements shall be made in accordance
to the currently approved DMT Monitoring Plan.
d) Weekly Feedstock Storage Area Inspection - the Permittee shall conduct weekly
inspectionsofallfeedstockstorageto: l)Confirm the bulk feedstock materials are
maintained within the approved Feedstock Storage Area defined by Table 4, and,2)
Verifu that all altemate feedstock materials located outside the Feedstock Area defined in
Table 4, are stored in accordance with the requirements found in Part I.D.1 1 .
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.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.l 1, prior Executive
Secretary approval will be secured for the following:
i. Engineering Design and Specifications - in accordance with the requirements of
Part I.D.4, and
ii. Operation and Maintenance Plan.
0 lnspections of Tailing Cell and Pond Liner Systems - the Permittee shall inspect the liner
system at Tailing Cells 1, 2, and 3 on a dailybasis pursuant to the requirements of
Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the currently approved DMT Monitoring Plan. The Permittee
shall conduct visual inspections at the Roberts Pond on a weekly basis. In the event that
any liner defect or damage is identified during a liner systern inspection, the Permittee
shall
implementation of the currently approved Liner Maintenance Provisions, and 2) report all
repairs made pursuant to Part I.F.2.
Cell 44 BAT Perfoflnance Standards Monitoring and Maintenance - in accordance with the
currently approved Cell4.{ BAT, Monitoring Operations and Maintenance Plan lursuan1to Part I.H.8 of this Permit. the Permittee shall immediately implement all monitoring and
recordkeeping requirements therein. The Cell4,A. BAT monitoring includes the following:
a) Weekly Leak Detection System (LDS) Monitoring - including:
1) Leak Detection System Pumping and Monitoring Equipment - the Permittee shall
provide continuous operation of the leak detection system pumping and monitoring
equipment, including, but not limited to, the submersible pump, pump controller,
head monitoring, and flow meter equipment approved by the Executive Secretary.
Failure of any LDS pumping or monitoring equipment not repaired and made fully
operational within 24-hours of discovery shall constitute failure of BAT,_4g!_a
violation of this Permit.
2) Maximum Allowable Head - the Permittee shall measure the fluid head above the
lowest point on the secondary flexible membrane by the use of procedures and
equipment approved by the Executive Secretary. Under no circumstance shall fluid
head in the leak detection systern sump exceed a 1-foot level above the lowest point
in the lower flexible membrane liner on the cell floor. For pu{poses of compliance
24
Part I.E
Permit No. UGW370004
monitoring this l-foot distance shall equate to 2.28 feet above the leak detection
systern transducer.
3) Maximum Allowable Daily LDS Flow Rates - the Permittee shall measure the
volume of all fluids pumped from the LDS. Underno circumstances shall the average
daily LDS flow volume exceed 24,T60 gallons/day.
4) 3-foot Minimum vertical Freeboard criteria - the permittee shall
maintain wastewater levels to provide a 3-foot Minimum of vertical
Tailings cell4,{. Said measurements shall be made to the nearest 0.1
operate and
freeboard in
foot.
b) Slimes Drain Recovery Head Monitoring - immediately after the Permittee initiates
pumping conditions in the Tailings Cell 4,A. slimes drain system, monthlyrecoveryhead
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 anyplan approved by the Executive Secretary
pursuant to Part I.H.8.
iner Maintena r-all
tion9.4 t June
PI Plan Table 5 oft
leted in
A
ualified li lr lbe Reoair
aUtah li bssional The LinerR shall
submi xecutive with he
other liner wil ed to the V
Secretary pursuant to the requirements found in part I.G.3.
9. On-site Chemicals Inventory - the Permittee shall monitor and maintain a current inventory
of all chemicals used at the facility at rates equal to or greater than 100 kdpr. Said inventory
shall be maintained on-site, and shall include, but is not limited to:
Identification of chemicals used in the milling process and the on-site laboratory and
Determination of volume and mass of each raw chemical currentlyheld 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, and48.
One slimes drain wastewater access pipe at each of Tailings Cells 2,3, aa*4A,aruJ ifi.
For Cells 3-and4A, and 48. this requirement shall applyimmediately after initiation of
de-watering operations at these cells, and
one leak detection wastewater access pipe at Tailings cells 4,{ and 48.
All such sampling shall be conducted in August of each calendar year in compliance with
the currently approved White Mesa Uranium Mill Tailing and Slimes Drain Sampling
Program. said annual monitoring shall include, but is not rimited to:
1) Field Measurements - including: pH, temperature, and specific conductivity.;
a)
b)
b.
c.
d.
25
art I.E
PermitNo. UGW370004
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 g21oD.
3) Certified Laboratory Analysis - all laboratory analysis will be conducted by a Utah
certified laboratory.
4) Analytical Methods - all laboratory analysis shall be conducted using analytical
methods listed in the curently approved QAP pursuant to Part I.E.1 of this Permit.
5) Minimum Detection Limits - all water quality analyses reported shall have a
minimum detection limit or reporting limit that is less than or equal to the respective:
i. Ground Water Quality Standards concentrations defined in Table 2 ofthis 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
mdL,1,000 mg/L, and I mglL, respectively, and
iii. Lower limits of quantitation for groundwater for semi-volatile organic
compounds listed in Table 2 of EPA Method S2TOD,Revision 4,datedFebruary,
2007.
6) Quality Control Samples - the Permittee will conduct quality control (QC) sampling
and analysis as a part of all tailings wastewater sampling, in accordance with the
requirements of Section 4.3 of the currently approved QAP; pursuant to Part I.E.1 of
this Permit. Said QC samples shall include, but are not limited to: trip blanks,
duplicate samples, and equipment rinse blanks.
7) Prior Notification - at least 30 calendar days before any water quality sample
collection, the Permittee shall provide written notice to allow the Executive Secretaryto observe or split sample any tailings cell, slimes drain, or leak detection
wastewaters.
8) Sample Omission - in the course of each annual sampling event, the Permittee shall
sample and analyze all tailings cell, slimes drain, and leak detection wastewater
sources identified in the currently approved Tailings and Slimes Drain Sampling
Program (pp. 1-3), or as requiredbythis Permit, whicheveris 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 I . Groundwater Monitoring Modifications - before anymodification of groundwater monitoring
or analysis procedures, methods, or equipment, the Permittee must obtain prior written
approval from the Executive Secretary.
I ofthe Cell 4 Moni andM
to Part is Permit ittee shall
26
record Cell 48
I
shall
Weekl
I
ection S
tion Svstem
Monit ludi
and Monitori u1
ar* r.E & r.F
Permit No. UGW370004
ittee sh
SI
in
leak detecti tem itori
ment
monitori
ofanv L
but not li ited to. the su
ow meter nt
ins or rel ui
ller
Executi
ired
ofdi I cons
violation of this Permit.
Allowab - the Permi ll measure t
int on the exible the
of BAT
equipment approved by the Executive Secretary. Under no circumstance shall fluid
head in the leak detection slrstem (LDS) sump exceed a I -foot level above the lowest
LDS.I]
dailv LDS flow volume exceed 26.145 eallons/day.
ure of BAT
llowable
Vertical F Criteria -ittee shall
to vertical
made to the nearest 0.1 foot.Cell48. Sai
edi Permittee
Cell48 drainintditions
i level will be
Parts I.D..7ft) ofthis it and an
pursuant to Part I.H.S.
intenance and
with Section 10.4 of the
nstruction
irs shall be
iner shall
tec
und in T
and shall be
ts Cell 4
Permit.
lnairRaUtah li ineer. The
ubmitted fi ive S al in ith Part I.F
ermit. An or other to the liner wi r
requirements found in Part I.G.3.
F. RrpoRrnqc RrqrnnErwNrs - The following reporting procedures for routine and compliance
reports must be met.
1. Routine Groundwater Monitoring Reports - the Permittee shall submit quarterlymonitoring
reports of field and laboratory analyses of all well monitoring and samples described in parts
I.E.1, I.E'2, I.E.3, and I.E.5 of this Permit for Executive Secretaryreview and approval.
Reports shall be submitted according to the following schedule:
27
Or**
Table 7.6 Groundwater M R
PermitNo. UGW370004
Schedulewater Moruton
Ouarter Period Due Date
First January - March June I
Second April - June September 1
Third July - 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:
a. Field Data Sheets - or copies thereofthat provide the following: well name, date and time
of well purging, date and time of well sampling, type and condition ofwell 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 thereofthat provide the following: date and time sampled,
date received by laboratory, and for each parameter analyzed, the following information:
laboratory result or concentration, units of measurement, minimum detection limit or
reporting limit, analytical method, date of analysis, counting error for radiological
analyses, total cations and anions for inorganic analysis.
c. Water Table Contour Map - which provides the location and identity of all wells sampled
that quarter, the measured groundwater elevation at each well measured in feet above
mean sea level, and isocontour lines to delineate groundwater flow directions observed
during the quarterly sampling event.
d. QualityAssurance 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 currentlyapproved GroundwaterMonitoring QualityAssurance Plan.
Said report shall veritr 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-confornance disclosure - with each quarterly groundwater monitoring report the
Permittee shall fully and completely disclose all non-conformance with requirements of
the curently approved QAP, mandated by Part I.E.1(a).
f. Electronic Data Files and Format - in addition to written results required for every
samplingreport, the Permittee shall provide an electronic copyof all laboratoryresults for
groundwater qualitymonitoring 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
28
I
2.
Part I.F
Permit No. UGW370004
Permit and the currently approved DMT Monitoring Plan. When a liner repair is performed
at the Roberts Pond or any DMT impoundment, a Repair Report is required by the Liner
Maintenance Provisions. This Repair Report shall be included with the next quarterly DMT
Report. Said monitoring reports and results shall be submitted for Executive Secretary
approval on the schedule provided in Table f6, above.
3. Routine Cell 4A and 48 BAT Performance Standards Monitoring Reports - the Permittee
shall provide quarterly monitoring reports of all BAT performance standards monitoring
required by Partg I E.8 and I.E.12 of this Permit. BAT Monitoring at Cellq 4A and 48 shall
be conducted in compliance with the currently approved BAT Monitoring Operations and
Maintenance Plan.
Report is required bv Parts I.E.8(c) and I.E.12(c) of the Permit. This Repair Report shall be
included with the next quarterly BAT Report. Said monitoring report and results shall be
submitted for Executive Secretary approval on the schedule provided in Table 16 above. At a
minimum, reporting of BAT monitoring for cellq 4A and 48 will include:
a) LDS Monitoring - including:
1) Report on the operational status of the LDS pumping and monitoring equipment
during the quarter, including identification of any intervals of non-operational status
and repairs.
2) Measurement of the weekly fluid head at the lowest point of the secondary
membrane.
3) Measurement of the volume of all fluids pumped from the LDS.
b) Measurement of the weekly wastewater fluids elevation in the Cells 44 and 48 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 anynon-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 l0 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
4.
5.
6.
29
Part Il
PermitNo. UGW370004
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,
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 Secretaryreview 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 complywith
the requirements of Part I.F.1(a) of this permit,
Laboratory Results - for each sample collected that comply with the requiranents 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 amap scale, such that, all
seeps and springs listed in the approved Sampling Plan for Seeps and Springs in theVicinity of the White Mesa Uranium Mill and the monitoring wells on site maybe seenon 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 waterquality data that meets the requirements of part I.F.l(d),
f) Electronic Data Files and Format - that meet the requirements of Part I.F.l(e) of this
Permit, and
g) Surveydata forthe seeps and springs shall bebased 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
3)
4)
5)
a)
b)
c)
30
Part IJ
Permit No. UGW370004
vertical elevations. The surveyed coordinates and elevations of the seeps and springs
shall be within 1 foot of the highest point of the saturated seepage face on the day of the
survey. This survey data must be obtained before any samples are collected.
8. Chemicals lnventory Report - at the time of Permit renewal the Permittee shall submit a
report to update the facilities chemical inventory report required by Part I.H.1. Said report
shall provide all inventory information gathered pursuant to part I.E.9.
9. Tailings Cell Wastewater Quality Reports - all annual wastewater quality sampling and
analysis required by Part I.E.10 shall be reported to the Executive Secretary with the 3'd
Quarter groundwater quality report due on December 1, of each calendar year. Said report
shall include:
a) Data evaluation and interpretation of all wastewater quality samples collected,
b) All information required by Part I.F.1(a), (b), (d), and (e) of this permit, and
c) For slimes drain samples, the Permittee shall report depth to wastewater measurements
from the water level measurement point. Said wastewater level shall be measured
immediately before sample collection.
10. Revised Hydrogeologic Report - pursuant to Part IV.D of this Permit, and at least 180
calendar days prior to Permit expiration, the Permittee shall submit for Executive Secretary
approval a revised hydrogeologic report for the facility and surrounding area. Said report
shall provide a comprehensive update and evaluation of:
a) Local hydrogeologic conditions in the shallow aquifer, including, but not limited to: local
geologic conditions; time relationships and distribution of shallow aquifer head
measurements from facility wells and piezometers; local groundwater flow directions;
and distribution of aquifer permeability and average linear groundwater velocity across
the site, and
b) Well specific groundwater quality conditions measured at facilitymonitoring 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 recoveryhead
report for Tailings Cells 2 and 3. Said report shall conform to the requirements of part
I.D.3(b), I.E.7(b), and II.G of this permit, and:
a) Provide the individual monthly slimes drain recovery head monitoring data for the
previous calendar year, including, but not limited to: date and time for the start and end
of recovery test, initial water level, final depth to stable water level and equivalent
recovery water level elevation.
b) Calculate the average slimes drain recovery head for the previous calendar year.
31
Part I.F & I.G
Permit No. UGW370004
c) Include a time series chart to show trends of the monthly recovery water level elevations
at each slimes drain.
d) lnclude 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) Verifu the accuracy and reliability of both the data and calculations reported.
e) Demonstrate compliance status with the requirements ofPart I.D.3(b) and I.8.7(b) ofthis
Permit.
G. Our oF CoMpLTANCE 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) Noti8i 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 LE.l(b) the
Permittee shall initiate monthly monitoring.
2) Semi-annual Baseline Monitoring Wells - for wells defined by Part LE.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.
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(C)(1). Notification shall be given orally within 24-
hours of the Permittee's discovery of the failure of DMT or BAT, and shall be followed
up by written notification, including the information necessary to make a determination
under R317-6-6.1 6(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
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).
2.
J.
32
o.* r.c & r.H
Permit No. UGW370004
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, thePermittee may affirmatively defend against that action by dernonstrating 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 inaction 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 SecretaryL
approval, an adequate plan and schedule for meeting Permit conditions, and
4) The provisions of uc A r9-s-r07 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 noti$, the Executive Secretary of the out of compliance status within24-hours after detection of that status, followed by a written notice within 5 calendar daysof the detection.
b) The Permittee shall continue accelerated sampling pursuant to part I.G.l, unless theExecutive Secretary determines that other periodic sampling is appropriaie, until thefacility 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 ofpotential 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 asdefined 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. ColrpueNcr Sctmourp Rrqum.EwNrs. The Permittee will comply with the schedules asdescribed and summarized below:
1. On-site Chernicals lnventory Report - the Permittee shall complete a historical review, andconduct 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 isavailable.
1)
2)
c)
d)
e)
J^'
c*,,
Permit No. UGW370004
At the time of Permit renewal, the Permittee shall submit an updated inventory reportpursuant to Part I.F.8.
2. Infiltration and Contaminant Transport Modeling Work Plan and Report - the permittee shallsubmit for Executive Secretary approval an infiltration and contaminant transport modelingreport that demonstrates the long-term ability of the tailings cells cover system to adequatelycontain and control tailings contaminants and protect nearby groundwater quality of thluppermost aquifer. Said report shall demonstrate how the tailings cell engineering design andspecifications will comply with the minimum performance requirements of part I.D.!6 ofthis Permit. The Permittee shall submit an infiltration and contaminant modeling forExecutive Secretary approval, that:
a) Identifies all applicable and pertinent historic studies and modeling reports relevant totailings 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 vadosezone and aquifer soil-water partitioning (K6) coefficients, tailings source termconcentrations, tailings waste leach rates, vadose zone and aquifer groundwater
velocities, vadose zone and aquifer dispersivity, contaminant half-life or other rates ofdecay, etc. [n the event that any required information is not currently available, thePermittee 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-termperformance of the tailings cells cover system. All predictive models used shall bepublicly available computer codes that adequately represent field characteristics andphysical processes at the tailings disposal site. Said description will also include specificinformation on model design, including, but not limited to: governing equations and theirapplicabilityto site conditions, grid design, duration of simulation, and selection of time
steps.
d) Determines the conceptual model used and justifies why it is representative orconservative of actual field conditions at the site. Said conceptual model will identifythephysical domain(s) and geometries simulated including the tailings cell design andconstruction, all boundary and initial conditions assigned in the model(s), *A tn"shallow aquifer locations where future potential contaminant concentrations have beenpredicted.
e) Justifies how the infiltration and contaminant transport problem has been adequately
conceptualized, planned, and executed to demonstrate compliancewiththerequirements
of Part I.D.86 of this permit.
D Provides, describes and justifies the following:
1) Model Results - including electronic input and output files from all infiltration,
groundwater flow and contaminant transport models used the report.
2) Model Calibration - including description ofresults and efforts used to demonstrate
how the model adequatelyreproduced field measured heads, flows, and contaminant
concentrations.
34
3)
4)
s)
Part IJI
Permit No. UGW370004
Steady State Conditions - including a demonstration that the models achieved a
steady state condition during the simulation. This includes, but is not limited todisclosure, 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 isnot limited to: boundary and initial conditions, model input values, and spatial andtemporal distribution of model parameters used in the problem domain.
Post-model Audit Plan - includingplans to revisit the modeling effort at some futuretime to re-assess its ability to represent site characteristics and predict long-term
performance of tailings cell design and construction, and groundwater proteiion.
The Permittee shall complete all modeling in accordance with the requirements of part I.H.2
and submit a final report for Executive Secretary approval. In the final report, the permittee
may include supplemental information to justify modification of certain permit requirements,including, but not limited to: the number and types of groundwater compliance monitoringparameters, tailings cell cover system engineering design and construction specificationsltailings cell operational requirements, etc. In the event the Executive Secretary requiresadditional information, the Permittee will provide all requested information within a timeframe approved by the Executive Secretary. Upon Executive Secretary approval of the finalinfiltration and contaminant transport report, the Reclamation plan r*v U. modified toaccommodate necessary changes to protect public health and the environment.
3' Plan for Evaluation of Deep Supply Well WW- 2 - thepu{pose of this plan is to evaluate theannular casing seal in water supply well WW-2, ani to ensure adequate well casing andannular 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 betweenthe shallow unconfined and the deep confined aquifers.
On or before January 31,2012, the permittee shall:
a) Conduct an investigation of water_supply well WW-2 to verifu that the casing andannular seal is intact and creates both a physical barrier and hydraulic isotation betweenthe shallow unconfined and the deep confined aquifers, said investigation shall includeone or more of the following investigation techniques performed i"n accordance withapplicable guidance from the U.S. Environmental Piotection Agency: well casing videologs, cement bond logs, and/or temperafure logs,
b) Show that the well casing and annular_seal have physical and hydraulic integrityto isolatethe .two aquifers mentioned above. In the er"nf that hydraulic isolatiil of the twoaquifers is uncertain or unsubstantiated for any reason, the Permittee shall repair the wellcasing and annular seal(s) to provide well conitruction that complies *ltt, t6" regulationsof the Utah State Engineer (UAg R655-4-9). After such r"pui." u.e "o-ptEted, thePermittee will conduct repeat testing using the investigation techniques required underPart I.H.3(a) to dernonstrate existence of the required f,ydraulic isotation, ana
c) Submit a written report for Executive Secretary approval to document the investigationand its findings,.and-any well repair activities. Said report shall be certified Uy attan-licensed Professional Engineer or Geologist.
35
C*,,
Permit No. UGW370OO4
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 ofthe Permit, the Permittee shall submit an updated
DMT Monitoring Plan for Executive Secretary approval that includes but is not limited
to the following:
1) The manner of weekly inspections the New Decontamination Pad, including the leak
detection system and concrete integrity of the decontamination pad.
2) Within 30 calendar days of issuance of the Permit, the Permittee shall submit an
updated Contingency Plan that clarifies what steps will be taken if there is water
found within the leak detection system and if discrepancies are observed on the
concrete pad.
3) Annual lnspection - the New Decontamination Pad will be taken out of service and
inspected annually during the second quarter, to ensure integrity of the wash pad's
exposed concrete surface. Ifdiscrepancies are identified [i.e. crack in the concrete
with greater than 1/8 inch separation (width) or any significant deterioration or
damage of the pad surface], repairs shall be made prior to resuming the use of the
facility. The inspection findings, anyrepairs 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 inspection findings, any
repairs required, and repairs completed shall be included in the in the 2od Quarter DMT
Monitoring Report due September l, of each calendar year.
6. Installation of New Groundwater Monitorine Wells - the Permittee shall install at least
ttree hydraulically downeradient wells adiacent to Tailines Cell 48. in accordance with
the followinq requirements:
a) New compliance Monitorine wells MW-33 and MW-34 - install two new
36
b)
c)
G**
PermitNo. UGW370004
compliance monitorine wells (MW-33 and MW-34) prior to placement of tailines and
wastewater i 48. The locations of the W-33 and MW-34 shall be t
same as shown on Fizure 4 of the February g. 2010 submittal by Hydro ceo iG-
Inc. Said monitorine wells shall:
ion of tail of shallow
from Tailines Cell48.
l4B.
ulrem
Part I.E.4 of this Permit.
b) wi
Buil
in 45 calendar
and MW-
ent of taili wastewater i ines Cell48. In the event
ires additional informatio
information within a time frame approved blz the Executive Secretarv.
rova monitorins w
calendar
well MW-
uired t
lation of W-35 shal
id location.
after ic inform
wells MW-3
compl)z with the requirements of Part I.E.4 of this permit.
Within 45 cal of completins installat
t said well
Executiv
I.F.6. In
Executive Secretary.
ecreta
I comnlv wi
additi
in a time
7
all drilli
dav wri
ell instal
ew wells w
within a
determi
installed
e
it
As-Bui
Execut
w
SI SU
Wells - w 30 caw
m that wi
48. theof wri utive of Tailin
b) Well monitorine procedure requirements of part LE.5.
art I.H
Permit No. UGW370004
c) After completion of eiqht consecutive quarters of qroundwater sampling and analysis of
these new wells (MW-33. MW-34 and MW-35). the Permittee shall submit a
Backqround Report for Executive Secretary approval. that will include:
1) Data preparation and statistical analvsis of groundwater quality data. includine. but
not limited to. evaluation of data characteristics and internal data consistency.
treatment of non-detectable values. and statistical methods used. These statistics shall
be calculated usine the Decision Tree/Flowchart used for the previous Backsround
Reports that was conditionally approved by the DRC on Auzust 24. 2007.
2) Shallow aquifer averaqe linear qroundwater velocit]' calculated for the new wells.
based on well specific hlzdraulic conductivity. hydraulic eradient. and effective
aquifer porosit)l.
d) If after review of the report. and the Executive Secretary determines that additional
information is required. the Permittee shall provide all requested information. resolve all
issues identified. and re-submit the report for Executive Secretary review and approval
within a timeframe approved blz the Executive Secretary. After approval of this report.
the Executive Secretarv will re-open this Permit and establish an appropriate monitorine
frequency in accordance with th
Groundwater Compliance Limits in Table 2 for the each of the new wells.
8. Revised BAT. Monitorine. Operations. and Maintenance Plan for Cells 4,A' and 48 - prior
to an), tailines or wastewater disposal in Cell 48. the Permittee shall submit and receive
Executive Secretary approval of a revised Cell 4A BAT. Monitorine. Operations and
Maintenance Plan. and a Cell48 BAT. Monitorine. Operations and Maintenance Plan.
At a minimum. said plans must include:
a) Description of the minimum required qualifications. experience. definition of roles
and responsibilities of all personnel actine in liner repair activities with respect to
Construction Oualitv Assurance Plans (COA/QC Plans) prepared by Geosyntec
Consultants. dated June 2007 (see Table 5) and Auzust 2009 (see Table 6).
b) Certification of each Liner Repair Report by a Utah Licensed Professional Engineer.
pursuant to Parts I.E.8 and I.E.12 of this Permit. and subsequent submittal thereof to
the Executive Secretary for approval in accordance with Part I.F.3 of the Permit.
c) For Cell 4,{. the plan shall include all related elements described in Parts I.D.6 and
I.E.8 of the Permit.
d) For Cell48. the plan shall include all related elements described in I.D.13 and LE.12
of the Permit.
9. Cell 4B As-Built Report - before anv disposal of wastes or wastewaters into Cell 48. the
Permittee shall submit an ensineerins As-Built report to document all construction
activities. for Executive Secretarv review and approval. Any deviations from the
Executive Secretary approved eneineerinq desiqn and/or specifications will be clearlv
disclosed and described. Said report shall be certified by a Utah licensed Professional
Ensineer. If after review of the As-Built report. and the Executive Secretarv determines
38
Part IJI
Permit No. UGW3700O4
itional in 10n ls the P
10. Additional Hvdroeeoloeic Investiqation and Report - prior to any tailines or wastewater
disposal in Cell 48. the Permittee shall:
Condu firm el
in of White Mesa. i ins- but
andlor Westwater S nn u studies w
shallow water
the Brushy Basin Shale Member of ison Fo these
and springs.
b) Provide written explanation and resolution of final survelr data for seeps and Ruin
Sprinq and shall use appropriate data points to construct a representative Brushv
losi mao of Whi but
ins Cell tact sur
certifi
sta Utah Li Professi neer
ll.Co
resolve the aoparent uncertainties associated with local qeoloqic strucfural dir-".tiorm
of the B Basin/Burro Canyon geolosic contact ocal
t that tive SI inform the P shall
ononati the Ex ve Sec
Drawi 6 of 8 - prior to of Cell 48. thePermittrevlseion B-ted in Ensi heet 6 of
ical to followi
cells
ime for
10n :il
m
materi must
at
windrow. and
windrow.
39
A.
B.
Part II
Permit No. UGW370004
PART II. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
RnpRpsnNrerrvE SAiupLrNG. Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements
established under Part I shall be representative of the monitored activity.
ANeryucer Pnocgpunrs. Water sample analysis must be conducted according to test
procedures specified under UAC R3 1 7-6-6.3 . 1 2 unless other test procedures have been specified
in this Permit.
C. PBNarrms FoR TaNmsRNc. The Act provides that any person who falsifies, tampers with, or
knowingly renders inaccurate, any monitoring device or method required to be maintained under
this Permit shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $ 10,000 per violation,
or by imprisonment for not more than six months per violation, or by both.
D. Rpponrnrc oF MoNIToRING Rrsurrs. Monitoring results obtained during reporting periods
specified in the Permit, shall be submitted to the Executive Secretary, Utah Division of Water
Quality at the following address no later than the date specified following the completed
reporting period:
Attention: Compliance and Monitoring Program
State of Utah
Division of Water Quality
Department of Environmental Quality
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4870
The quarterly due dates for reporting are: June 1, September 1, December 1, and March 1.
CotvrprmxcE SCIIEDULES. Reports of compliance or noncompliance with, or anyprogress reports
on interim and final requirements contained in any Compliance Schedule of this Permit shall be
submitted no later than14 calendar days following each schedule date.
ApnrnoNer MoNrronmc By rIIE Ppnvrrrrpp. 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 ofthe data
submitted. Such increased frequency shall also be indicated.
G. RrconpsCoNTENTS.
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 measurernents;
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,
0 The results of such analyses.
E.
F.
40
H.
Part II
Permit No. UGW370004
RrrsNTIoN oF RECoRDS. The Permittee shall retain records of all monitoring information,
including all calibration and maintenance records and copies of all reports required by this
Permit, and records of all data used to complete the application for this Permit, for a period of at
least five years from the date of the sample, measurement, report or application. This period may
be extended by request of the Executive Secretary at any time.
Noncp oF NoNCoMPLIANCE RpponrmC.
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 Quality24-hournumber, [phone], orto the Division ofWater 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.
OltmnNoNcowueNCE REroRTING. Instances of noncompliance not required to be reported
within 5 calendar days, shall be reported at the time that monitoring reports for Part ILD are
submitted.
INsppcloN AND ENTRv. The Permittee shall allow the Executive Secretary, or an authorized
representative, upon the presentation of credentials and other documents as maybe 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.
I.
J.
K.
41
A.
Part III
PermitNo. UGW370004
PART III. COMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITIES
Dury 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.
PpNernps FoR VToLATIoNS oF PERMIT CoNntrtoNs. The Act provides that any person who
violates a Permit condition implementing provisions of the Act is subject to a civil penaltynot 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.
Nppo ro HALT oR Rroucp Acrrvrry Nor e DprpNsp. 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.
Dury ro MrncArg. 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.
Pnoppn OppnerroN AND MAINTENANcE. The Permittee shall at all times properly operate and
maintain all facilities and systerns of treatment and control (and related appurtenances) which are
installed or used by the Permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions of this Permit.
Proper operation and maintenance also includes adequate laboratory controls and quality
assurance procedures. This provision requires the operation ofback-up or auxiliary facilities or
similar systems which are installed by a Permittee only when the operation is necessary to
achieve compliance with the conditions of the Permit.
B.
C.
D.
E.
42
Or*,,
Permit No. UGW370004
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
PART IV.
PraNNpn CneNcps. 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.
ANucperBD NoNCoMrLIANCE. The Permittee shall give advance notice of any planned changes
in the permitted facility or activity which may result in noncompliance with Permit requirements.
PpnurrAcrIoNS. This Permit maybe 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 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.
Dury ro PxovrDE NFoRMAnoN. 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 modiffing, 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.
Orrmn INponuarroN. When the Permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit anyrelevant
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.
StcNeroRyRpeunrlrmNTs. A11 applications, reports or information submitted to the Executive
Secretary shall be signed and certified.
1. A11 permit applications shall be signed as follows:
a) For a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer;
b) For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner or the proprietor,
respectively.
c) For a municipality, State, Federal, or other public agency: by either a principal executive
officer or ranking elected official.
2. All reports required by the Permit and other information requested by the Executive
Secretary shall be signed by a person described above or by a duly authorized representative
of that person. A person is a duly authorized representative only if:
a) The authorizationis made in writing by a person described above and submitted to the
Executive Secretary, and,
43
Part [V
Permit No. UGW370004
b) The authori zation specified either an individual or a position having responsibility for the
overall operation of the regulated facility or activity, such as the position of plant
manager, operator of a well or a well field, superintendent, position of equivalent
responsibility, or an individual or position having overall responsibility for
environmental matters for the company. (A duly authorized representative may thus be
either a named individual or any individual occupying a named position).
3. Changes to Authorization.If an authoization under Part IV.G.2. is no longer accurate
because a different individual or position has responsibility for the overall operation of the
facllity, a new authorization satisfuing 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 at 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 ofmy
knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant
penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and
imprisonment for knowing violations. "
H. PBNerrms FoR FersrnceloN oF RrpoRrs. The Act provides that any person who knowingly
makes any false statement, representation, or certification in any record or other document
submitted or required to be maintained under this Permit, including monitoring reports or reports
of compliance or noncompliance shall, upon conviction be punished by a fine of not more than
$ I 0,000 per violation, or by imprisonment for not more than six months per violation, or by both.
L AvenesLrry oF Rnponrs. Except for data determined to be confidential by the Permittee, all
reports prepared in accordance with the terms of this Permit shall be available for public
inspection at the offices of the Executive Secretary. As required by the Act, permit applications,
permits, effluent data, and groundwater quality data shall not be considered confidential.
J. PnopnRry 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.
K. SpvsRABILITy. The provisions of this Permit are severable, and if anyprovision ofthis 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. TnaNsrens. This Permit may be automatically transferred to a new Permittee if:
1. The current Permittee notifies the Executive Secretary at least 30 calendar days in advance of
the proposed transfer date;
44
M.
N.
Part IV
Permit No. UGW370004
2. The notice includes a written agreement between the existing and new Permittee containing a
specific date for transfer ofpermit responsibility, coverage, and liabilitybetween them; and,
3. The Executive Secretary does not notiff the existing Permittee and the proposed new
Permittee of his or her intent to modifu, 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.
Srers Lews. Nothing in this Permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal
action or relieve the Permittee from anyresponsibilities, liabilities, penalties established pursuant
to any applicable state law or regulation under authority preserved by Section 19-5-115 of the
Act.
RroppNBR PRovtstoNs. 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 ofthe Permit or to include pollutants coveredbynew 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.
45
Uranlum Wat.ch
P. O. Box 344
Moab, Utah 84532
435-2 10_o1 6 6
Via electronic mail
May 10,2010
Mr. Dane Finerfrock, Director
Utah Division of Environmental eualityDivision of Radiation Control
P,O. Box 144850
Salt Lake City, Utah 841l4-4g50
RE: comments on white Mesa Uranium Mill: Modification to the GroundwaterDischarge Permit No. uGw37004 and Amendment 4 to Radioactive Materials LicenseNo. UT1900479.
Dear Mr. Finerfrock:
The proposed License Amendment 4 to Radioactive Materials License No. uTlg0047g isfor the constructio, ?f ul.y tailings impoundment at the white Mesa Uranium Mill,gwled and operared by Denison Mines ose) corporation (DUSA, or Applicant).Below ate comments on the license amendment and the safety Evaluation Report:Review of License Amendment Request and Environ."rtuiti"port for Cell 48.
I. WHITE MESA ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
l ' l ' The construction.?f 9.]l 4B will impact a number of Archeological Resources at rheMill site and in the white Mesa Archaeoiogical District. white Mesa is in an areaadjacent to and in the vicinity of extensive tribar holdings and an area rich inarchaeological resources, which have been designated uI rilniri.unt and deserving ofpreservation' Many Archaeological Resources on white Mesa have been found Jtigiul"for.the. National Register, including resources that will be or have been impacted byactivities associated with the proposed license amendment.
The Licensee and the Utah Division of Radiation
the requirements of License Condition 9.7, which
Control (DRC) have not complied with
states, in pertinent part:
AII disturbances associated with the proposed development will becompleted in compliance with the National Historic freservation Act (asamended) and its imprementing regurations, and the Archaeological
Resources Protection Act (as amended; and its implementing regurations.
Utah Division of Radiation Control
May 10,2010
Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act includes compliance with
Section 106. The Safety Evaluation Report (SER) fails to discuss how the Applicant
fulfilled its responsibilities under the "National Historic Preservation Act (as amended)
and its implementing regulations, and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (as
amended) and its implementing regulations."
A conffactor to the licensee has commenced excavation of the Archaeological Resources
at the Mill, with approval of the DRC. However, excavation has commenced without the
any Section 106 consultation. The excavation of the valuable Archeological Resource on
White Mesa has taken place without informing and consulting with nearby tribal
governments and tribal Historic Preservation Officers and without an opportunity for
public comment,
Further, the Licensee commenced activities that have impacts on the Archaeological
Resources and are the subject of License Condition 9.7 requirements prior to this
comment period and prior to the issuance of the license amendment and final
environmental evaluation.
All activities that impact Archaeological Resources at the Mill should cease until DRC
initiates and completes a Section 106 consultation process, including consultation with
affected tribal governments or appropriate tribal representatives. The DRC should not
issue the license amendment without consulting with the Ute, Navajo, and other regional
tribal Historic Preservation Officers regarding the destruction of irreplaceable historic
resources.
Further, the SER must include a discussion of how the Applicant has complied with the
provisions of License Condition 9.7.
I.2. LICENSE CONDITION 9.7.
The DRC is not proposing any changes to License Condition 9.7, which pertains to the
cultural resources at the Mill. License Condition 9.7 refers to a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOU) between the Utah State Historical Preservation Officer (SHAPO), the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC), and Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. (a former Mill owner/licensee). The MOU was
ratified on August 20,1979, and amended on May 3, 1983. The MOU should be
amended or replaced, since it does not reflect the current situation at the Mill.
2, SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT (SER)
2.1. LICENSEE REPORTING RESPONSIBILITIES (SER, page2r).
The DRC should make the effluent monitoring reports, Semi-Annual Effluent Reports
and Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Reports and any additional effluent monitoring
information submitted by the licensee pursuant to License Condition I L2 available on
Utah Division of Radiation Control
May 10,2010
the DRC website in a timely manner.
LONG TERM IMPACTS
UCA R313-24-3D: Environmental Analysis - Long Term Impacts, Safety Evaluation,
states that, pursuant to UAC R3l3-24-3, a major license amendment stroutO include
"consideration of the long-term impacts." The SER discussion addresses long-term
impacts' However, the SER and the UCA section do not define long-term an-cl leave the
issue of long-term containment of the mill tailings and their associaied emissions to be
addressed in a future Reclamation Plan. Under current federal regulation (40 C.F.R. Sec.192.3z(B)(lXi)l), consideration of the technical requirements forlong-term containmentof the tailings is limited to "one thousand years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and,in any case, for at least 200 years." The SER (page 30) gives states that Cell 48 has been
designed to provide "reasonable assurance that radiological hazards will be suitably
controlled for 1,000 years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and in any case for at
lease 200 years."
So, we have "reasonable assurance" to the extent that suitable control is
achievable." what does this vague language mean over the rong-term?
licensee, and the DRC do not really know.
"reasonably
The public, the
The tailings will remain on White Mesa in perpetuity, that is, forever. Therefore impacts
from 200 to 1,000 years are short-term impacts, not long-term impacts, given the time
that the tailings will continue to release radon and will be a radioactive and hazardous
matedal requiring physical and regulatory control for as long as there are individuals and
entities capable of exercising that control.
' 40 cFR }ec.192.32(B)(1)(i).
(1) Disposal areas shall each comply with the closure performance standard in Sec. 264.lll otthis chapter with respect to nonradiologicalhazards and shall be designed to provide reasonable
assurance of control of radiological hazards to (i) Be effective for one thousand years, to the
extent reasonably achievable, and, in any case, for at least 200 years, and, (ii) Limit releases of
rudon-222 from uranium byproduct materials to the atmosphere so as to not exceed an average \2\
release rate of 20 picocuries per square meter per second (pCi/m2s).
V\ This average shall apply to the entire surface ofeach disposal area over periods of at least one
year, but short compared to 100 years. Radon will come from both uraniurnbyproduct materials
and from covering materials. Radon emissions from covering materials should-be estimated as
part of developing a closure plan for each site. The standard, however, applies only to emissionsfrom uranium byproduct materials to the atmosphere.
Utah Division of Radiation Control
May 10,2010
Eventually the liners will break down, eventually the tailings cover will erode, and
eventually the tailings and the associated radioactive and non-radioactive contaminants
will disperse into the air, water, and soils.
Any evaluation of the long-term impacts of the proposed licensing action must address
the potential impacts of the dispersion of the tailings from natural forces over the
thousands and millions of years that the tailings will remain in place.
2.4. PERMANENT ISOLATION wITHour ONGOING MAINTENANCE (SER, page
24)
10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion l, states that tailings should be disposed of in a
manner that no active maintenance is required to preserve conditions of the site.
There is no doubt that over the years, active maintenance will be required to preserve
conditions of the site. The Department of Energy (DOE) has already discovered that
active maintenance is required at some of the uranium mill sites that have been reclaimed
and that DOE have responsibility for, due to erosion. The DOE is actively looking at
different cover and tailings design systems because of the problems they have
encountered at these sites.
No matter what the design is, eventually the cover, tailings, and White Mesa itself, will
erode, as demonstrated by the geological landscape in the region. Any claim to continued
long-term isolation of the tailings--without active maintenance--via a man-made design is
not supportable.
The DRC should consult with the DOE and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and take
into consideration recent studies and data regarding the effectiveness oftailings system
designs and materials to update the final cover design and materials requirements in order
to achieve the maximum long-term isolation of the tailings with minimal maintenance.
The DRC should not mislead the public and licensee into thinking that isolation of the
tailings for 1,000 and for the long-term future can take place without active maintenance.
2.5. IMPACTS OF DEWATERING OF THE TAILINGS CELL (SER, pages 25 -26)
The discussion of the permanent isolation without ongoing maintenance (10 CFR Part 40,
Appendix A, Criterion l) and the Reclamation Plan refer to the dewatering of the tailings
cell after the operational life of the cell. However, there is minimal discussion about two
of the primary problems encountered at uranium mills once operation has ceased and cell
dewatering commences. Once dewatering commences, the result is an increase in the
release of radon from the cell and an increase in windblown tailings, The SER mentions
the possibility of the use of "platform fill," but provides little information and analysis of
the use of fill or other means to minimize the emission of radon, hazardous and
radioactive particulates to the atmosphere and the environment.
Utah Division of Radiation Control
May 10,2010
The SER should discuss in more detail the impacts of cell dewatering on the emission of
radon and other gases and hazardous and radioactive particulates and how these impactswill be mitigated during the estimated 5.5 years between the cessation of cell operation
and the placement of an interim and final cover.
2,6. OFF SITE MEASURING DEVICES
The February 72,2010,letter to Dave Frydenlund, DUSA, from Senes Consultants Ltd.,
states (page 2): Due to the inaccuracy of the radon measurement devices the mill is not
required to sample for environmental radon under its license."
The Application for Cell 48 and the SER fail to provide supportive documentation
regarding various types of radon measuring devices and their supposed "inaccuracy" tojustify the failure to measure environmental radon from Cell 4 B and other radon ,-our.r,
at the Mill. This would include on- and off-site monitoring of radon.
The SER should include a full justification, with supporting documentation, of the on-
and off-site radionuclide monitoring programs, including monitoring of radon. If DUSA
is not required to sample for environmental radon and other radioaciive releases on- and
off-site, the public must know why and have supporting technical bases.
2'7. EFFLUENT coNTRoL DURING opERATIoNS (sER, pages 59 - 60)
The SER discusses compliance with l0 C.F.R. 40, Appendix A, Criterion 8, with respect
radioactive effluents from the mill and tailings impoundment. Criterion 8 includes the
requirement:
Milling operations producing or involving thorium byproduct material
must be conducted in such a manner as to provide reasonable assurance
that the annual dose equivalent does not exceed 25 millirems to the whole
body, 75 millirems to the thyroid, and 25 millirems to any other organ of
any member of the public as a result of exposures to the planned discharge
of radioactive materials , radon-220 and its daughters excepted, to the
general environment.
The SER fails to discuss how compliance with the above requirement for exposures to thepublic will be measured and compliance will be assured with respect the release of the
discharge of radioactive materials from Cell 48 and other sources at the mill during the
operation of the tailings cell,
The SER should explain exactly how the Applicant will demonstrate compliance with
Criterion 8 with respect the emission from Cell48.
2.8. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATIONS
o
adiatioUtah Division of R
May 10,2010
n Control
The SER does not discuss required compliance with other state and federal regulationsprior to the commencement of consffuction of Cell 4 B, This would include c-ompliance
with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subpart A. Section 6l.07 requires thatDUSA submit an application to the Utah Division of Air Quality (DAO ior Cell 48 as anew 40 C'F'R' Part 61, Subpart W regulated source and receive an approval from theDAQ, pursuant to Section 61.08. Recently, DUSA was issued a t{oiiie of Violation by
the Environmental Protection Agency for failure to comply with the Subpart Aapplication/approval process for the Arizona I uranium mine. Therefore, the DRC
should remind DUSA.of their Part 6l responsibilities. Additionally, DUSA may berequired to amend their air quality permit for the non-radioactive emissions from theuranium mill.
The White Mesa license should contain a condition that states that DUSA must comply
with all applicable federal and state regulations and statutes and a license condition that
states that DUSA cannot commence construction of Cell 4B until DUSA receives therequired approval as a new 40 c.F.R. subpart w regulated source from the DAe.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sarah M. Fields
Program Director
Uranium Watch
And on behalf of:
Glen Canyon Group
Sierra Club
P.OBox622
Moab, utah84532
Harold Shepherd
Executive Director
Red Rock Forests
P.O. Box 298
Moab, utah 84532
435t259-5640
DENISON t'4INES (USA) CORPORATION
WHITE MESA URANIUM I,,IILL
GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE PERI4IT MODIFICATION
PUBLIC HEARING
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
7:00 p. m.
at the Blanding
7L5 West
BIandi
Arts and Events Center
200 South
ng, Utah
Reported by Vi cky McDan.i el , CSR, RMR
Held
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
L3
t4
L5
16
L7
18
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
Phi 1 Goble
Department of Envi ronmental Quali ty
168 North L950 West
Sa1 t Lake Ci tY , Utah 84L44
Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]
pgoble@utah. gov
Ci ti Court , LLC
801.532.344L
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
L5
15
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
C'itiCourt, LLC
801_.532.344L
PROCEEDINGS
MR. G0BLE: 0kay, .i t , s seven o,clock and
I'11 go ahead and get started.
My name 'i s Phi 1 Goble. I,m wi th the
Division of Radiation Control, and today I have
Mr. David Rupp ass'i sting me. we're here to take
pubric comment regarding the proposed changes for the
|,'Jhite lvlesa MiIl permit and also license amendment.
The way th.i s wi11 work today .i s, I,ll go
ahead and make a bri ef statement , then I wi l 1 open
the t i me ove r to you to speak .
l-he way we've set i t up, and you saw our
public notice, is because we have two different
documents we're talki ng about today, the 1 i cense and
also the permit. we're going to set it up so we'I1
talk about the ti cense fi rst and then we'11 tatk
about the permi t. so from seven to ei ght we,ll talk
about the f icense, eight to nine we'11 talk about the
permit. There may be some people who only want to
make comment on one of them, so we'11 give them an
opportuni ty to 1et me know now, and i f they would
like to leave, they can 1eave, so they don't have to
stay for the whole time. But if you want to stay for
the whole time, that,s f.i ne.
L
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
LL
L2
13
L4
15
t_6
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
The way thi s 'i s goi ng to work i s, I'11
gi ve each and every person a chance to talk. You' 11
have f i ve m'i nutes to speak. Everyone gets an
opportunity to speak. we have seven people to talk
ri ght now. And then at the end of your five mi nutes,
what we'1I do i s actua11y, after four mi nutes
we'11 say "one minute" to give you a warning, and
then we'11 say "time. " And then we'11 need you to
stop you r publ i c comment , and the next person gets
the opportuni tY.
At the end of the publ i c comment, after
eVeryone has had a chanCe, those who still have more
to say will get the opportunity to speak aga'i n. So
we want to hear everyone if they have anything to
say.
Also, the public comment period actually
doesn,t close ti11 th'i s next Monday, on May the 10th.
So if you don't say everything you'd f ike to say and
you f orget about i t, you sti 11 have the opportun'i ty
to make publ i c comment . And you can subm'i t that to
me e'i ther by e-mai 1, wh'i ch i s pgoble@utah. gov, or you
can also mail that to us. 0ur address can be found
on our websi te, whi ch i s radi ati oncontrol . utah. gov.
So what I 'd 1i ke to do now 'i s , I 'm goi ng
to 100k at the list, and I want to determine who is
Ci tiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
L0
LL
L2
L3
L4
15
16
L7
L8
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
Cit'iCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
going to speak just on the Iicense, who on the
pe rmi t , or who' s goi ng to speak on both . 50 i t 100ks
like the fi rst person here we11, he actualty says
he's unsure i f he wants to make a comment or not, .i s
Steve Hancock. Do you want to make a comment?
MR. HANC0CK: I'm sti 1l not sure.
l4R. GOBLE: 0kay, we'll put you at the
end. The next person I have here i s Bradley Ange1.
NR. ANGEL: I,ll just make one comment
addressing both
HR. GOBLE: 0kay. That sounds f.i ne. So
you'11 do both.
0kay. Nex.t we have Ton.i Turk. Do you
want to do j ust the 1 i cense or the permi t, or both?
0r are you j ust maki ng a general statement?
MR. TURK: Just a general statement.
MR. GOBLE: 0kay. At I ri ght. And
Mr. Chris Webb?
t"]R. WEBB: 0ne comment .
MR. GOBLE : 0kay. And t4s. Fi etds?
MS. FIELDS: 0n both.
MR. GOBLE: Both. And Mr. Lyman?
MR. LYI'4AN: Both.
l'4R. GOBLE: Both.
0kay. Wel1, what I'11 do fi rst i s, I'1I
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
L0
LL
t2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
j ust te11 you, I guess, what some of the changes are
forthepermitandthelicense,andthenWe'11go
ahead and open up the publ i c comment. And i t looks
1i ke the fi rst person to speak wi 11 be Mr. Angel.
I ' 1 I 1 et you know when that t i me has come '
5o si nce we're goi ng to be talki ng about
the license first, now, the big thing here is Denison
MineshaveproposedtomakeaneWtailingscell,
Ta.i lings ce11 48. That is the reason for having this
publ i c meeti ng today. Some of the changes or
additions to the f icense'i nclude the submittal of an
updated Reclamati on Plan and speci fi cati ons for
approval to .i nclude Tail.i ngs Ce11 48, changes in
tai 1i ngs ce11 wastewater freeboard requi rements, the
submi ttal for approval for wri tten Standard 0perati ng
Procedures, and improvements for content for the
Annual Techni caI Evaluati on Report '
And then regardi ng the permi t, we have an
addition of a definition for engineering design
standards for the nev.r Taifings Ce11 48, defin'it'ion of
BAT performance standards for Tailings ce11 4B,
'i nstallati on of at least three nevv moni tori ng wells
hydraulically downgradient of Tailings Ce11 48, the
submittal of an updated BAT monitoring plan for ce11
48, the submittat of an additional hydrogeologic
Ci ti Court , LLC
801.532.344L
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
LL
L2
13
L4
L5
16
L7
L8
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
investigation report of nearby seeps and Ru.i n spring,
and the submi ttal of an engi neeri ng as-bui tt report
regarding Cetl 4B.
So, do we have anyone e1 se who's maki ng
publ i c comment? we have one more? can you bri ng
that to ffi€, please.
MR. RUPP: Sure. Actual Iy, not.
Actua11y, 'i t's a question. Maybe. It's a maybe.
MR. G0BLE : 0kay. lvlr. Taylor Lyman, you
have a ques.tion mark here. Are you wanting to make
comment?
l'lR. T. LYMAN: We ' 1l see .
MR. GOBLE: Okay. We1l, we can wa.i t unt.i l
the end and I can ask you.
All right. Now, like I said, the first
person who wi I I make pubt i c comment w.i l1 be
14r. Bradley Ange1. And like I said, what we'11 do .i s
we'11 give you five m'i nutes, you,11 hear a one-minute
warning, and then we'lI te11 you ,,time.,, Then you
also have the opportuni ty to gi ve your comment agai n.
5o let's turn thj s over to Mr. Angel.
MR. ANGEL: Thanks. Good even.i ng. Agai n,
my name i s Bradley Angel, and my address .i s p.0. Box
L078, Moab. And I'm here as director of an
organizat'i on called Green Action for Health and
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
L5
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
Envi ronmental Justi ce and on behalf of our
consti tuents j n both Grand and 5an J uan County
i ncludi ng Wh'i te Basi n Ute communi ty '
A few comments. 0ne i s that I've been
coming to hearings on this m'i 11 for a number of years
now, and I know ii's not how your agency does th'i s,
but it's a problem and it's a flaw that I didn't
rece'i ve noti ce. And unless you af f i rmati vely si gn up
onyourwebsiteontheLjstServ,youdon'tgetthese
notices.
And that mi ght be somethi ng I can do ' but
f or people who are actually most d'i rectly af f ected by
decis:i ons the state makes and is making around this
facility, it's a big problem. Because, for example,
a lot of folks at the White Basin Ute community are
low i ncome and do not have regular access to
Internet. So the way the rules are set up
systemi cally makes i t a real i ty that most folks who
are most affected have no idea this meeting'i s even
happening,andlthinkthat.sarealproblem.And
one of the reasons 'i t's such a big problem is that
your agency and other state agenci es consi stently
fail to assess the impacts of actual ones that are
documented as well as potent'i at i n the f uture on the
health and envi ronment and cultural resources of thi s
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
LL
L2
13
L4
15
16
L7
L8
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
area.
5o, for example, you know, when was the
last time you a1l assessed the yellowcake comi ng out
of the stacks at the urani um m.i ll? when .i s the last
time the people of whi te Mesa, the actual tri baI
members, were i nformed about that? I don't know i f
that ever happened.
For the discussion and issues before us
today, i n part'i curar we are very concerned and
opposed to thi s new constructi on that's proposed
because, once again, with the bressing of the state
of Utah, the company i s destroyi ng ceremonj al,
potenti a1 ceremoni aI but certai nly culturally
significant sites that are well documented,. that,
just as you at the state, the people in this audience
would not want or churches and temples desecrated,
this once.again with the state blessings is what's
happening.
We think not onty is that unethical and
immoral, we also think it's i11egal. And it doesn,t
matter from our perspecti ve i f i t's happeni ng on
private land, because 'i t's happening courtesy of
state permi ts.
The State of Utah has an ob1.i gati on. you
are making consideration under federal ru1es. you
Ci tiCourt, LLC
80L.532.3441.
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
t0
L1
L2
L3
L4
15
15
L7
1"8
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
have delegated authori ty from the federal government
to run thi s program. And I would venture to guess
that the Divi sion of Rad'i ation Control receives some
other addi t j onal types of benef i ts, maybe f i nanc'i al
benefi ts, Such aS grant program or other support from
the federal government.
If any of that is true, which I think a1t
of i t probably 'i s, then the state once agai n 'i s
violating the United states civil Rights Act, Title
vI. And I've rai sed th'i s bef ore, and i t's completely
i gnored bY the state.
As a reci pi ent of f ederal f und'i ng, you are
proh.i bi ted f rom taki ng any acti ons that would have
discrim.i natory or disproport'i onate impact on low
i ncome people of color, f ike the wh'i te l{esa ute
people. It's i11ega1.
MR. RUPP: 0ne mi nute .
MR. ANGEL: And the desec rat'i on and
absolute destruction of ancient sites that could
involve burials that are certajnly culturally
si gni fi cant, not j ust some anci ent arti fact for a
museum; they're part of the living culture of the
people here. And your agency, by the deci si ons
you've made in the past and by the one I believe
you,re planning on approving, which you should not,
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
1.L
L
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
i.0
LL
L2
13
L4
L5
L5
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
would not only help desecrate these sites, continue
to devastate the cutture of the native peoples of
this area, and we believe violate the civil Rights
Act. so we really want you to take a look at that
before any dec'i sions are made. Thank you,
|VlR. GOBLE : Mr . Angel , d.id you want to
reserve any time for later?
MR. ANGEL: No. Thank you.
MR. GOBLE: At1 ri ght. 0ur next person
will be a Mr. Ton'i Turk.
NR. TURK: Thank you. I apprec.i ate the
opportunity to address this body. I'd like to
'i ntroduce myself . I'm the mayor of Blanding, and I
would 1 i ke to respond to some of Mr. Angel ' s
comments. 5'i nce he i s f rom Moab, he may not be, you
know, as i nformed about the commun i cat i ons and the
processes that occur here as someone that i s 10ca1.
I would poi nt out that Whi te [,lesa, Inc. .i
a ma j or employer of the whi te l,lesa ute communi ty and
works i n coltaboration w'i th Deni son H.i nes f or that
employment.
The other part to that i s that Cleo
Bradford, who has worked very closely wi th the whi te
Mesa Utes, i s very computer ti terate and .i s able to
receive and disperse all communications that pertain
Cit'iCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
L0
L1
t2
L3
L4
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
to that commun'i ty and, to my knowledge, does that.
In fact, they have a ute meeti ng house j ust close to
this facif itY.
The otheri s, at Rotary Club recently we
had a deta.i led presentation of the archeological
recovery of knowledge that Denison Plines has funded,
and that has added significantly to the database of
understanding of the cultures that have lived here
anc.i ently. And aIl of those artifacts that are
recovered and recovered accordi ng to archeologi cal
procedure are made available for further research at
the Edge of the Cedars l'luseum.
Now, I would like to address the plans for
this expansion of the new ce11 and express confidence
'i n the sc'i ence that the Wh'i te Mesa management,
Den'i son l"li nes, thei r oversi ght that they have
exerci sed. If there was someth'i ng that was goi ng to
be going on ten miles from this community that was a
threat to th'i s communi ty, Blandi ng Ci ty would be the
f i rst 'i n 1i ne to be concerned. But we do have
confi dence that they are professi onal and that good
sci ence i s goi ng forward. And there i s a place for
regulatory oversight, and that is to ensure that
those processes are appropri ate and timely and that
the necessary adj ustmentS are made aS adj uStmentS are
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
1L
1.2
1.3
L4
15
L5
L7
18
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
Cj tiCourt, LLC
80l..532.344L
L3
seen to be needed.
I would like to point out that San Juan
county i s the most i mpoveri shed county i n the state
of utah. By some reckoni ng, i t's somewhere between
the 8th and the L5th most impoveri shed county i n the
un'i ted States. And to not support one of the ma.i n
econom'i c engi nes that support thi s economy and
support a large porti on of our i ndi genous peoples and
their livelihoods I think would be shortsighted. It
certai n1y would fall short of bei ng concerned for the
f if e, liberty, pursu'i t of happ'i ness of our population
that reside here.
And I would express the opi nion that
Deni son Mi nes i s good for our communi ty, i t's good
for our area, and we have every confi dence that they
are bei ng good nei ghbors and that they are bei ng good
contri butors to our economy.
Those are my thoughts.
MR. G0BLE : A1 1 r i ght . Thank you ,
. 0ur next person that wanted to speak is
s Webb.
MR. WEBB: He1lo. My name .i s Chr.i s Webb.
Blanding city manager.
I have been associ ated wi th the mi 11 most
fe growing up here 'i n Blanding. In fact, I
Mr. Turk
Mr. Chri
I am the
of my 1i
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
L2
L3
t4
15
16
L7
L8
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
was involved in the construction of the mi11, though
at that t'ime was not aware at what poi nt I mi ght get
involved or be involved w'i th the mi11 and their
operations there.
As I sta rted my j ob as the B1 and i ng Ci ty
manager L4 years ago, the mi 11 operati ons have been
up and down. They've been able to propose di fferent
actions out there again to continue to see the
further viability of the operations there'
As those th i ngs have happened , i t' s ra'i sed
questions in the minds not only of Blanding citizens
but of other people around i n the reg'i on. And a lot
of people get Very, Very emoti onally i nvolved i n
these thi ngs, s?yi ng, f i sten, we love the area ' we
love the surround'i ngs, and we' re worri ed, what's thi s
going to do to us. And we can't get too caught up
emotjonally. We have to rely on the scienceS and we
have to get involved.
For those reasons, as a communi tY we
approached the NRC and sai d, okay, te11 us. what's
real. We need to know if there is a health and life
saf ety threat here. we need to know 'i f there i s a
problem. Because again, as our mayor has just stated
previously, we'11 be the fi rst to step in line'
Because the health and life safety of our citizens 'i s
Ci tiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
15
L
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
1t
L2
13
L4
15
L6
L7
18
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
more i mportant than any economi c devel0pment,
obviously; although , again, that's an important part
of a communi ty .i f i t can be done ri ght.
So meeting w'i th them and having the
sciences exptai ned to us and what's happeni ng and how
those protections are 'i n prace and what needs to
happen, it was anazing. It was absolutely amazing to
find out the things that have to be done and a1t the
regulations in place to ensure public safety.
The 5tate of Utah, Blandi ng Ci ty, San Juan
County, none of us want to see anybody hurt or
damaged. And what we have found out i n our
experi ence over the many, many years now.i n deating
wi th the mi 1r i s that they are a very good steward
and a very good partner and a very good communi ty
member. And if those regulat'i ons are folrowed to the
T, all the way down to what k'i nd of penci 1 you can
use'i n making your reports and signing your names and
those ki nd of thi ngs, 'i t's j ust amazi ng to me a1l the
regulations that you have to fo11ow through.
And as those things, the sciences and
stuff were explai ned to us, we became very supporti ve
of the processes and became very confident that they
can continue those processes if those regulations
that are set up by the sc'i ent'i sts that run our nation
CitiCourt
801.532.
, LLC
344L
L
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
L0
1l.
L2
13
L4
15
15
L7
18
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
and run our state. We appreci ate that ' Agai n '
emotions set aside, we support what's happening there
and want to sPeak in favor of that'
MR. GOBLE: All ri ght ' Thank You'
Mr. Webb. The next person that wanted to speak is
Ms. Fields.
l'4S.FIELDS:MynameisSarahFields'and
I represent an organizat'i on named uranium watch in
Moab, Utah. And I thank you for the opportuni ty to
speak.
I agree with the previous speakers that
the regulati ons and the i mplementati on of the
regulations by the f icensee are very important. I
wi 11 be submi tti ng some wri tten comments, but I also
have a few oral comments.
First regards the archeological resources
at the m'i 11. Currently archeological excavation is
taki ng place f rom e'i ther a f ew over ten
archeologi cal s'i tes are bei ng excavated. Plost of the
archeologi cal s j tes on whi te lvlesa are anc'i ent pi t
houses.
When the s'i te was constructed in the late
1970's and early l'980's, there was extensive
archeologi ca1 excavat'i on. Arti f acts were taken.
some of those ended up at the uni versi ty of Utah;
C'it'iCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
L7
L
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
L0
i.L
L2
13
L4
15
L6
L7
L8
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
some of those ended up at Edge of the Cedars. And
yet in the past 30 years, none of those artifacts
have been exhibited at Edge of the cedars, and there
have been no addit'i onal studies and there have been
no presentations retated to that extens.i ve
a rcheol ogi cal excavat i on .
Although artifacts will be taken,
essentially these h'i storic, to me, incredibly
beaut'i fu1 and si gni fi cant s.i tes that could have been
the basi s f or a nat'ional monument here i n san Juan
county, wh'i ch wourd probably over the years have
brought more econom'ic benef i t to thi s area, these
s'i tes wi Il also be destroyed. They wi 11 be destroyed
by the construction of the mjIt.
5o the essence of these sites w.i ll be
destruction. And as the m'i lI expands, more s.i tes
wi 11 be destroyed, because whi te 14esa of i tself .i s an
archeological district, and I would think that the
communi ty would have more of an i nterest i n
preserving those sites.
I've talked with the NRC recently about
whether sect'ion 10G consultat.ion was requi red. I
have not yet gotten a response from them. They, re
looki ng i nto thi s, But I thi nk the f a.i lure of the
Di vi s'ion of Rad'i at i on cont roI and the f a i l u re of the
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1.0
L1
L2
L3
L4
1.5
16
L7
L8
19
2o
2L
22
23
24
25
utah Hi stori ca1 soci ety to consult w'i th the wh'i te
Mesa Ute and the Ute Mountai n tri ba1 governments and
the Navajo tribal historic preservation is
unacceptable, and I feel the D'i vi s'i on of Rad'i ati on
Control must consult with these entit'i es before they
approve this license amendment.
Also, license condition 9.7 needs to be
stricken from the license. That license condition
pertains to cultural resources at the m'i 11 and refers
to a memorandum of agreement between the Utah State
historical Preservation officer
MR. RUPP: 0ne mi nute.
MS. FIELDS: the advisorY counc'i 1 in
historic preServation, the NRC and energy is nuclear'
This Mou is totatly out of date. It's from L979,
amended i n 1983. It doesn't refer to the current
conditions of the license, so that license condition
should be rev'i ewed and should be brought up to date.
Let's see. I'11 just go on what I have
time for. oh. A1so, the Div'i sion of Radiation
Control should make the effluent moni tori ng reports
and any addi ti onal effluent moni toli ng i nformati on
submi tted by the 1 i censee pu rsuant to 1 i cense
cond.i ti on L1,.2 avai labte on the DRC websi te. You've
done a real 1y good j ob to make a1 I the documents
Ci ti Court , LLC
801.532.344L
19
L
2
relati ng to th'i s f icense amendment request, the ce11
4A
MR. RUPP: T.ime ' s up.
MS. FIELDS: the license available, and
I commend you for that. Thank you.
t'4R. G0BLE: Thank you, Ms. F.i eIds. Would
you 1i ke to reserve some time after everyone else has
had the opportunity to speak?
t"lS. FIELDS: yes.
MR. GOBLE: 0kay. We'11 go ahead and do
that for you. The next who wanted to speak was
Mr. Joe Lyman.
NR. J . LYMAN: I ki nd of stumbled .i nto
finding out this meeting was happening, and I sent
out an e-mai 1 to a few people, hopi ng they could get
here. And I'rt address a thought to that a 1.i ttle
b'i t 1ater.
But my impression of what,s happened with
the m'i 11 0ver the years that 'i t ' s been there, I
worked there f or a period of t.ime when I was younger,
'i s that by and rarge they've been very responsi b1e
with what they've done. I think that Mr. I,,rebb's
comments addressed that poi nt.
I have seen at times, some of the
oppos'i t'ion to activity of the mill have not been well
Ci t i Court
80L.532.
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
1L
t2
13
L4
L5
16
T7
18
19
20
21.
22
23
24
25
, LLC
344L
20
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
L0
11
L2
L3
L4
L5
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
founded . Maybe Some of them have, maybe Some of them
haven't; but I know there's been some of the
oppos'i tion expressed that turned out to not be
parti cularlY well founded.
anybody i s saYi ng todaY. I
observation.
I th'i nk the employment that they provi de
i s cri t.i ca1 . As Mayor Turk i lluStrated, we' re i n an
extremety depressed economy, and a 1ot of the
emptoyment that the m'i 11 provi des i s to the very
people that some say we should be protect'i ng f rom the
mi11. And it could be devastating to the entire area
to not have that employment and support that, wh'i ch I
do.
I 'm pretty su re we could probably have a
roomf u1 of people here 'i n support of the mi 11, but
they, 1i ke me , ar e busi nessmen who are try'i ng to
provi de for themselves and provi de opportuni ti es for
others to provi de for thei r fami 1 i es . we' re j ust too
busy. We're tryi ng to make thi s country run ' and
frankly,we'retoobusytryingtodothattospenda
lot of ti me and energy com'i ng to these ki nds of
meeti ngs.
So I can't address what
t's just been histori cal
And on that note, I
do toni ght, so I've got to go '
've sti tl got work to
But I've got to thi nk
2L
1.
2
I would represent 50 peopte .i f they only had the t.ime
and the abi 1i ty to become awa re of these th.i ngs to
come and speak and support the m^i I1. I thi nk they
would be here. so I support what they're tryi ng to
do. Thank you.
l'4R. G0BLE: A1l right. Thank you,
14r. Lyman.
So the next person, we have a Mr. Steve
Hancock. you had unsure. would you rike to make
a --
MR. HANCOCK: I 'm good fo r now.
l'4R. G0BLE: At 1 ri ght, Steve. And another
person we have as kind of a maybe was Tay10r Lyman.
Would you like to
l4R. T. LYMAN: No.
MR. GOBLE: No. 0kay, Ms. F.i e1ds. And
presently we don't have anyone el se on the 1 i st, so
go ahead and speak ti l1 you're done, I guess.
prs. FIELDS: I won't take too much time.
MR. GOBLE : 0kay.
I'4S. FIELDS: In goi ng over the safety
evaluation report, and f, too, have other employment
and d'id not have a rot of t'ime to go over arr of
thisr but when you tark about rong-term .impacts of
the mi11, it states that the sERs, which is the
Ci tiCourt
801. s32.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1.0
11
L2
13
L4
1.5
L5
1.7
18
L9
20
21,
22
23
24
25
, LLC
344L
t
22
L
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
LL
t2
L3
t4
15
L5
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
safety Evaluati on Report, whi ch i s the envi ronmental
analysis that you're required to do for a major
1 i cense amendment under the Atomi c Energy Act ; the
Atomi c Energy Act has spec'i f ic requ'i rements f or
agreement states, ?od the state of Utah i s an
agreement state under the NRC's regulat'ion under the
Atomi c Energy Act where the federal government has
given the state of utah the responsib'i lity for
regulat'i ng uranium mills in Utah'
But when you talk about long- term i mpacts '
you don't really define what Iong-term impact means.
The sER states that ce11 48 has been designed to
provi de reasonable assurance that radi ologi caI
hazards w'i 11 be suitably controlled for 1,000 years
to the extent reasonably ach'i evable, and in any case,
for at least 200 years. The federal regulati ons
1 i mi t the techni cal assessment for the techni ca1
requi rements for long- term contai nment of the
tailings to that 200-year to 1,000-year period.
However, we at1 know that those tai 1 i ngs
are goi ng to be there i n perpetui ty, forever. so 200
to ].,000 years isn.t a Very long time period when you
thi nk that they are goi ng to be there forever and
ever.
So eventually the 1 i ners wi 11 break down,
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
23
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
1.L
1.2
1_3
L4
15
L5
L7
1.8
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
Ci tiCourt
801.532.
, LLC
344L
the tailings cover will erode, and eventually the
ta'i 1 i ngs and assocj ated radj oact.i ve and
nonrad'i oacti ve contami nants w.i l1 di sperse i nto the
ai r, water, and so'i 1. It's not a matter of .i f, i t's
a matter of when. Most you, me, the people jn
thi s room are not goi ng to be here then. But there
stil1 will be, hopefulty, a population in th.i s area
And I think when the Divis.ion of Radiat
control looks at the long-term impacts that they
rea1ly have to at least honestly assess what's going
to happen to those tai ri ngs 10,000 years from now
you know, 2,000, 10,000, 100,000 years from now.
Also, in your SER you tatk about jsolation
wi thout ongoi ng mai ntenance. And I thi nk the
Division of Radiation control in conjunction with the
NRC and in conjunction with the Department of Energy,
wh'i ch now has responsi bi I i ty, that's Department of
Energy now has the responsibility for long-term
mai ntenance for all the otd type, what they call
Ti t1e I uran'i um m'i lls, and f or any uran.i um mi l1s,
other uranium milIs that have closed.
5o they're f i ndi ng out what the 'i ssues are
even over the short period of time of 50 years from
the closure of some of these si tes. so they've been
di scoveri ng what some of the long- term mai ntenance
't on
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1t
L2
13
L4
L5
L5
L7
L8
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
'i ssues are, whether i t's contami nati on of the
groundwater. And in the west there are billions of
gallons of groundwater that has been contami nated by
uranium mi11s.
So theY're looki ng at groundwater
contami nat.i on, they' re look'i ng at the erosi on, and
even now the Department of Energy i s looki ng j nto
different types of caps for mi11 ta'i tings, because I
think they're finding that some of the previously
desi gned caps that have been put i n place are rea1ly
not as adequate as they had predicted'
So I think the Division of Radiation
Control with the NRC and the D0E should take a harder
look at what real1y what i s a reali stic long-term
mai ntenance scenario for Whi te Mesa and for other
urani um mi t1 ta'i 1i ng si tes, whether i n utah or i n
othe r states , ?od take advantage of the new data and
the new i nformati on that i s bei ng generated so that
when this tailing ce11 and the other tailing ce11 at
V,Jhi te l,lesa are complete, have gone through operati on,
they get covered , the plan, the long-term reclamati on
plan is adequate.
Thank you.
MR. GOBLE: Thank You, 14s. Fields. Is
there anyone else who didn't sign up who would like
Ci ti Court , LLC
801.532.344L
25
1.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
L0
LL
L2
13
L4
15
15
L7
18
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
to speak now?
MR. TURK: Is it possible for add.i tional
comment?
I'4R. G0BLE: Absolutely, Mr. Turk. you can
come up, absolutely.
I'lR. TURK: The poi nt that I would I.i ke to
bring forward at this time is, fotlowing Katr.i na,
that di saster on the Gulf Coast, whi ch was
devastating to our country, the Assoc.i ated press
conducted a study to determi ne what c i ty i n the
uni ted states would be the safest ci ty from natural
di saster, and they came to the conclus.ion that
B1 and i ng would be that c i ty. And that y.,as an Ap
pubfication.
I think that really speaks to the
substructure of the land that we,re .i n. we're not .i n
an earthquake prone area. we don't have significant
natural d'i sturbance in this area. It would seem that
i f you're goi ng to have a locat'i on to contai n the
materi a1s that need to be conta'i ned when we,re, you
know, talking in terms of many years into the future,
it would seem that this would be a place that would
certainly rise to the top as a location that would
have a long-term, secure dynamic coming from nature
'i tse1f.
CitiCourt, LLC
801. s32.344L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
L1
L2
13
L4
15
L5
L7
18
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
So with that in mind, I believe that
thi s you know, wi th sc'i ence, wi th nature, we have
the potenti a1 to create what we need to create i n
order to produce the energy that this nation 'i s going
to requi re.
There'sbeenalotofdebateaboutnuclear
energy, and that's not what thi s meeti ng's about; but
on the green sj de of the equati on, nuclear energy i s
f ree f rom a 1ot of the downs i des of othe r ene rgy
forms. So I just want to add that part'
MR. GOBLE : A1 1 r i ght . Thank You ,
Mr. Turk.
Let' s see. A1 so, Mr . Angel , do you have
And then we'11 f ollow up w'i th Mr. Webb '
MR. ANGEL: BradleY Angel . You know,
science that a110ws rad'i oactive materials to be
unprotected and unwatched and have no provisions for
i t f or thousands of years af ter Deni son P]i nes i s gone
and we' re all gone 'i s a bi g problem. And as we all
know, f or example, 'i n thi s area the wi nd blows pretty
fiercely, and Ieaving rad'i oactive materials blowing.
I would also ask you if the state agency is aware of
any ti me, for example, that radi oacti ve materi als
assoc'i ated wi th thi s fac'i 1i ty ended up not contai ned,
such as bY the hi ghwaY.
more?
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
L0
1L
t2
13
L4
L5
L6
1.7
L8
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
And agai n, you know, i ssues of what comes
out'i n the stack, particularly yellowcake. when was
the last time? r th'i nk that's realry important,
because we're al1 in a need for good economy, for
health as we11. And I th'i nk that i s more important
than that . But , you know, people aI so have a ri ght
'i n our democracy to know what they're bei ng exposed
to, and I don't think that informat.ion's been futly
di sclosed; and I know for a fact i n tatki ng to a
number of tri bal members over the years, they did not
know, for example, that yellowcake was comi ng out of
that stack. And that's unacceptable.
I n te rms of an economi c boom , I th i nk i f
you look at, 'i n one short sentence, there's an
economic boom in l'loab right now resutting in the
cleanup of the radioactive pile of tailings from the
o1d Atlas 14i11. But that's not a good situation.
It's costing taxpayers millions and millions and
m'i llions of do11ars. so I think we need to be
protective of health.
Also that, whatever your perspecti ve, i f
you're for thi s faci li ty , agai nst i t, don't know, I
again want to say that it's not just enough that
Mr. Bradf ord at whi te l"lesa, Inc. knew about thi s. we
know a number of tri bal members, at 1east, I can't
Cit'iCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
L0
1L
L2
13
L4
15
L5
L7
L8
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
Ci tiCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
speak for all , had no i dea thi s was goi ng on tonj ght.
And that's why I think the state has to do a better
j ob and change the rules to ensu re that i n a
democracy people have the ri ght to exerci se the'i r
democrat ri ghts to participate in dec'i sions that
affect thei r 1 i ves, and that i ncludes knowi ng about
meet'i ngs 1i ke thi s . But thank you.
MR. G0BLE: Thank You, Mr . Angel .
P1r. Webb, You wanted to saY more?
MR. WEBB: I d'id. Just a couPle Poi nts,
heari ng these addi ti onal comments.
There's a lot of thi ngs, be'i ng i n a c'i ty
posi ti on and havi ng to go through thj s process
myself . In addit'i on to a city manager, I'm atso the
envi ronmental certi fyi ng offj cer for the ci ty, State
recogn'i zed. We've got to go through these processeS
all of the time.
And there's a lot of these existing laws
that we'd like to see changed one way or the other.
It's been addressed here tonight. I th'i nk the state
ought to change the rules. They ought to do th'i s,
they ought to do that . And some of those rules wi 1 1
probably go th rough a process of change.
I also sat on the State Div'i sion of
Dri nki ng Water board for ei ght years, went through
29
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
L0
L1
L2
1.3
L4
L5
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
all kinds of processes and public processes in these
rules. And there's people that come in all the t.ime
sayi ng, these rules need to change; we've got to get
tougher, because what i f, what i f, what i f.
We11, some of those "what .ifs,,' as we
d'i scover more and the sc'iences change and they're
sayi ng that rules need to be changed, great, change
them. But these applications before you today aren't
about those what 'i fs. And yeah, and this a good
forum to encourage the state to change the ru1es.
But these applications ought to be judged today on
today's rules and the rules that are today i n place.
And i f those rules at some poi nt requi re addi t.ional
monitoring, great.
But I can tell you that the mon.i tori ng i s
happeni ng, that the state ensures the mon.i tor.i ng's
happeni ng, and that the rules are bei ng followed as
they are i n pIace. And so we encourage the state to
make sure that when they j udge these app1.i cations f or
processes that they're j udgi ng them based on today's
ruIes, not on hopes for changes in future ru1es, but
those rules are changed today.
The other poi nt that I wanted to make i s
wi th regard to archaeology. we understand the
i mportant heri tage that comes to the ci t.i zens of our
Ci tiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441.
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
L1
L2
L3
L4
15
t6
L7
L8
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
Ci ti Court
801. s32.
, LLC
344L
communi ty i n these archeologi cal s'i tes. The ci ty of
Blanding is over 40 percent Native American, so we
understand how i mportant those si tes are, and we
spend as a city in doing our projects hundreds of
thousands of dollars in collecting data, 'i n analyzlng
that data So that we can find out and make sure that
we're not letti ng some valuable resource go or some
valuable data go.
But as we go to an a rea 1i ke ou r b'i g
reservoi r, when we Went out there and put 'i n out B'i g
Fork ReserVoir, there are So many s'i tes in our area
that nothi ng would happen i f we di dn't let any si te
go . So somet i mes s i tes have to be mi t'i gated . We
collect all the data v',e can, and then a site 'i s
covered, or could even be lost after that process
happens.
So we understand that Process i s
happening, that these applications through these
appl.ications that that process is happen'ing, that the
m.i 11 has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in
collecti ng data so that they too could move forward
wi th the.i r pro j ects. And we would encourage that i n
this case. that these applications be approved.
MR. G0BLE: Thank You, Mr. Webb.
0kay. If there's no one else that wanted
31
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
1L
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
18
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
to speak, we don ' t have anyone e1 se that s i gned up,
we're scheduled unti 1 9 o'clock. so what we'll do
right now is, I'm going to go ahead and call a
recess. we'11 call a recess for let's see. Right
now the time is it's 7:42. Let,s call a recess
unt i 1 8: L5 and see i f anyone shows up.
For those tnrt are here, you guys are
welcome to stay. You mi ght have more comment i n the
future. And we're going to be here for I guess the
next half hour to see if anyone else wants to show up
and make comments. so I'm going to go ahead and call
a recess right now, and we'Il take pretty much a
half-hour break.
(Recess f rom 7:42 p.m. to g:j.5 p.m.)
MR. G0BLE : The t i me .i s now g: 15 . We , l1
go ahead and open back up the meet i ng. I t looks I i ke
no one el se has s'i gned up to make publ i c comment . so
do any of you gentlemen who are here want to make
comment ? 0kay .
I j ust want to let you guys know that
publ i c comment can be recei ved up to 5 o'cIock on
Monday, l'4ay 10th. And rike I said, you can either
e-mai 1 that to me at pgoble@utah. gov, or you can go
on our webs'i te and you can f ind our address and ma.i 1
i t to us. And so long as 'i t has the postmarked date
Cit'iCourt, LLC
801.532.344L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
t1
L2
t3
L4
15
16
L7
18
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
of that date , May L0th , we' 1 1 accept i t .
I forgot to thank Vi cky here. The person
who was helpi ng us today i s vi cky McDan'i e1 . I f orgot
to introduce her earlier today, so I wanted to do
that now.
5'i nce we don ' t have anyone eI se to make
public comment, I'm going to go ahead and call thi s
meeti ng ended. so th'i s meeti ng i s now ad j ourned.
Thank you for attending, and when we have one in the
future, we'd 1 i ke your presence agai n. so thank you
very much.
(Meeting adjourned at 8:L5 P.m.)
***
Ci ti Court , LLC
801.532.344L
33
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
LL
L2
L3
L4
L5
15
L7
L8
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
REPORTER' S CERTIFICATE
STATE OF UTAH
COUNTY OF SALT LAKE
)
)
)
5S
r, VICKY McDANIEL,Reporter and Notary Publ i c i nUtah, do hereby certify:
Regi stered lvleri tand for the State of
That on May 4, 20J.0, the f oregoi ngp.roceedi ngs were reported by me i n stenotipe andthereafter transcribed, and that a ful1, tiue, andcorrect transcription of said proceedings is setforth in the preceding pages.
WITNESS 14Y HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL thi s 9thday of May, 2010.
VICKY McDANIEL,Notary Public
Resid'i ng 'i n 5al
C5R, RMR
t Lake County
Cit'iCourt
801 . 532 .
, LLC
344L
Public Attendance Sheet
Denison Mines (USA)
Blanding, Utah
Public Meeting: May 4,2010 (7:00 - 9:00)
License Amendment (7:00 - g:00)
Permit Modification (8:00 - 9:00)
\
.d B"*.
b--\
%(\
bI\
%+\
Name
(Please Print)
WillYou Be Making
Comments?
Yes / No
Organizatlon / Affiliation
Phone Number and Emai!
Address:
Would You Like a Copy ol
the Public Participation
Summarv?rrt?v x^
Sa"<tar,/c*/1 Ut{ Sar c
W!L-r.l4eAq. t a qat g,; 1."t eelgf2t</Varrz-r..- tr_-.,
tlel \-/V?<
0hreiuevJtr h/c Ellfilf/Muak (o iP
t'.ri^-{*'\[ ,.^,.ufi rl De,t, (a.,r \AA ,r^z s N)o
lcwtltt A^ rr)Y'r t 'r=, Gr%acf ov*bra)ltw @ Q,ttDntrhur o-/r Lfu
Kobtrtlko,u\-I
40 lo Y
ftdt t4t{J
/o.t, /tf11 -''/r/a I 7lrnJ,'o, C,l,u/o.l
D^.-.] T-tl.<'Nu
v1
n,.az,,^ Wr*,{.,
6fr"a [4)LYg*''&, '7 ;f/odra,crts la,reffil
DhtE FRY\Erut.,nt\
,
Lc,b;,,,j^ vn,^'-, /J
v4e S
.5o, o, /, i ,, [1,/s / l/?atat*-2, ,,r/" i At7r,, h uf'y/c a
Jo< & /*,',^o^,/%r,Ce&t 14c o l-{{au /L) O
Public Attendance Sheet
Denison Mines (USA)
Blanding, Utah
Public Meeting: May 4, 2010 (7:00 - 9:00)
License Amendment (7:00 - 8:00)
Permit Modification (8:00 - 9:00)
Name
(Please Print)
WillYou Be Making
Comments?
Yes / No
Organization / Affiliation
Phone Number and Emai!
Address:
Would You Like a Copy of
the Public Participation
Summarv?
Alae I lla
f,.yl. l.y^--,/y*-.. */5 y'*5'
1Z/\Z)/4 &
o
Public Attendance Sheet
Denison Mines (USA)
Blanding, Utah
Public Meeting: May 4, 2010 (7:00 - 9:00)
License Amendment (7:00 - 8:00)
Permit Modification (8:00 - 9:00)
o
Name
(Please Print)
WillYou Be Making.:flffffi Organization / Affiliation
Phone Number and Email
Address:
Would You Like a Copy of
the Public Participation
Sgnmlry?
fvoo t,kn1, -C(*/ry?il ltr+e u +h'.t,-l --r-1. l^--<-
U ?7€b.{slgz_
*/salAaF na6i.((A*t4-. A,O{?