Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRC-2017-002586 - 0901a068806e4096April 11, 2017 Scott T. Anderson, Director Ute Mountain Ute. ‘Tribe Environmental Programs Department P.O. Box 448 Towaoc, Colorado 81334-0448 (970) 564-5430 Div of Waste Management and Radiation Control DRC-2017- 002.566 Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control Utah Department of Environmental Quality 195 North 1950 West P.O. Box 144880 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-8440 RE: Response to Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control Letter Dated February 16, 2017 Dear Mr. Anderson, This letter is in response to the letter from the Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (UDWMRC) dated February 16, 2017. The letter was in response to two letters the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Environmental Programs Department (UMUT EPD) had sent to UDWMRC in December, 2016 and January 2017 which concerned issues associated with plugging and abandoning MW-3, the adjustment of cadmium and thallium ground water compliance limits (GWCLs) and a isotopic study of water chemistry that has potential to yield valuable data for stakeholders interested in the protection of human health and the environment in the vicinity of the White Mesa Uranium Mill, San Juan County Utah (the Mill). UMUT EPD thanks UDWMRC for taking the time to consider and respond in writing to the concerns detailed in our recent letters. In the interest of continuing a dialogue and discussion we feel like it is important to transmit this follow up letter to provide additional clarity on some of our positions and highlight some issues where we remain in disagreement with UDWMRC. We hope this letter will serve to facilitate an ongoing working relationship to resolve some of our important environmental concerns associated with the Mill facility. We are pleased to see that the GWCLs for cadmium and manganese for MW-3A have been recalculated and will be included at lower, more appropriate levels in the upcoming Groundwater Discharge Permit renewal. Thank you for addressing our comment on this point. In regards to the concept of indicator parameters selected and developed for the Groundwater Discharge Permit (GWDP), the 2004 Statement of Basis document clearly reveals that the 38 constituents were chosen for continued monitoring in order to detect potential impact from Mill operations at the earliest possible point in time. Page 7 of the Statement of Basis (SOB) details the development of Groundwater Compliance Limits for each of the 38 chosen parameters, "to be used as early-warning indicators of impending groundwater pollution." This rationale directly conflicts with recent UDWMRC correspondence. The February 16, 2017 letter from UDWMRC, for example, states, "In no part of the Statement of Basis are these metals referred to as indicator parameters." Apparently, there is inconsistency between statements in the SOB and the current UDWMRC understanding and implementation of the GWDP/GWCLs for the Mill facility. UDWMRC statements in the February 16, 2017 letter suggest that many of the 38 GWCL constituents are not being considered as "indicator" parameters. For example, page three of the letter states that, "parameters which are selected as early indicators of tailings solution in groundwater consider both the concentration in the source and the mobility of the contaminant if released from the source" As the 2004 SOB makes clear, each of the 38 parameters selected for monitoring as early-warning indicators of groundwater pollution was selected based on its concentration in source material (ore, alternate feed material, process solutions/reagents) and its mobility in the environment as determined by partitioning coefficients (Kd) and retardation factors (Rf). Contaminant mobility in the subsurface is a fundamentally complex subject, which as recognized by UDWMRC, depends on site-specific values for Kd and Rf factors, among other considerations which interact to influence the speed of contaminant transport within an aquifer/vadose zone. Metals were specifically discussed in this context in the 2004 SOB, and UDWMRC expressly decided to require GWCL development and associated monitoring for them due to the high acid environment created at the Mill and the unknown buffering capacity of the aquifer materials for the site which could cause heavy metals to mobilize through the subsurface if there were a release. UDWMRC notes in the February 16, 2017 letter a concern regarding the Tribe's "recent use of gross average trace metals" to claim groundwater contamination, however, the Tribe has been consistently advocating for a determination of compliance with the GWDP for the Mill to be based on the "each well, each parameter" (GWDP SOB, page 7) evaluation and interpretation of data in regards to detecting potential facility impact to groundwater. Recent federal guidance confirms that this nuanced approach for determining compliance with discharge permits and successfully detecting contamination is the correct approach for regulators to take. The recently revised proposed rule for In Situ Leach Uranium Operations, Flealth and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Mill Tailings, 40 CFR Part 192 (USEPA, 2014) clarifies that a determination of contamination by a regulating entity may be made based on one indicator parameter significantly exceeding its compliance limit. UDWMRC recognized that the natural variation at the Mill site and the unique nature of the material and related process reagents used at the site required the selection of an expanded suite of indicator parameters which needed to be set on a well-by-well basis. The same reasoning also requires that site- specific geochemistry be used in the process for evaluating each well for each indicator parameter. Geoscientists have recognized for many years that generic or default values found in literature can result in significant errors in the detection and remediation of pollutants in groundwater and that values calculated using site-specific conditions are, "absolutely essential" (EPA1999) It concerns the Tribe to see broad generalizations, including generic Kd and Rf factors, for specific constituents of concern, being used by UDWMRC for the evaluation and analysis of potential indicators of contamination. For example, page three of the February 16, 2017 letter states in regards to chloride, "there is no retardation of movement through the vadose zone." A review of the science literature regarding chloride mobility in the vadose zone reveals a plethora of evidence and data that thin clay layers have been shown to retard chloride by retaining the ions in their matrix. Clay layers may exist both in the vadose zone as well as at the bottom of the tailings impoundments. Retardation of chloride mobility is noted in foundational scientific texts such as Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Characteristics of Natural Water, USGS Water-Supply Paper 2254, Flem 1992 and in many peer reviewed papers published and readily available. In fact, this phenomenon has been observed in the same geologic formations encountered at the Mill site (USGS 1995) and under similar hydrologic conditions (Applied Geochemistry 2008.) Similarly, uranium, which has been cited by the Mill and UDWMRC as one of the primary/best indicator parameters, is well-known to be extremely sensitive to redox conditions and may readily be geochemically affected by site-specific factors which would retard its mobility and therefore utility as a key indicator parameter. This concept of uranium mobility retardation and associated limitations for detecting a contaminant plume associated with uranium recovery operations is recognized in recent federal guidance (USEPA, 2014). Fluoride, another constituent cited by the Mill and UDWMRC - "Fluoride is the fastest-moving available indicator of tailings seepage" (Energy Fuels Resources and Utah Division of Radiation Control DRC Memo: II DRC-201B-003137 II) - as one of the best indicator parameters has not been scrutinized or investigated by Mill staff/contractors or UDWMRC in that context, despite the alarming fluoride levels at MW-22, the southernmost well at the site and the closest monitoring well to the Tribe. The Tribe would like to clarify to UDWMRC that we are not, as stated in the February 16, 2017 letter, and have not ever been using "gross average trace metals concentrations in groundwater to claim that a contaminant plume exists below the Mill" (UDWMRC, 2017). We realize the list of metals the Tribe listed as constituents of concern was lengthy and included beryllium, cadmium, manganese, thallium and zinc, and in prior correspondence we have included other metals. For example, in the context of MW-22, we would add cobalt, copper, molybdenum and nickel to the list. Flowever we are not lumping these constituents into a gross category and remain consistent in our message that any one of these indicator parameters when present at elevated concentrations and associated with statistically valid rising trends could indicate impact to groundwater from the Mill facility. These constituents were chosen to be monitored due to extreme concentrations present in ore, feed and process materials at the Mill and potential for migration in the environment. When multiple constituents of concern are present at elevated levels and rising trends it adds additional weight to the possibility of a root cause stemming from Mill operations. The August 2015 Geo-Logic Report was prepared by Geo-Logic Associates as an independent assessment of groundwater conditions and impacts at the White Mesa Facility based on a review of available data reports submitted to UDWMRC. Geo-Logic Associates is a geologic, geotechnical, civil and environmental consulting firm with recognized experience and expertise in geology and hydrogeology at mining and other operations, as well as geotechnical expertise with impoundment liner systems and leak detection. 1 inWMRC's mischaracterizations of the report (e.g. calling the report "highly biased" and "completely unrepresentative") are completely unfounded and counterproductive to a discussion of scientific matters that have serious implications for human health and the environment. The Geo-logic Report does in fact consider concentrations of specific metals in the tailings cells and the relative mobility of contaminants in contrast to UDWMRC statements that it does not. We believe UDWMRC should be investigating rather than dismissing the lines of evidence brought up in the Geo­ logic report, including specific metals increasing downgradient of the Mill, the lack of scientific evidence to support the pyrite theory, and the evidence of much faster groundwater travel times than the Mill and UDWMRC have consistently relied on as part of the foundation of evidence to claim there is no current impact to groundwater stemming from Mill operations. UDWMRC 2017 details how UDWMRC sees MW-2 as a suitable water chemistry surrogate for MW-24 while there is a distance of 200 meters (approximately 656 feet) between the two locations. This type of analysis is inappropriate and contrary to the design of the monitoring well network which was designed as an intrawell network, with compliance limits developed for each well as a standalone location in the GWDP. This decision was made due to the variable, heterogeneous nature of the Burro Canyon geologic formation which is fluvial in nature and has intrinsic variability in both chemistry and physical properties such as porosity and permeability. It would be helpful to all parties if a consistent Conceptual Site Model (CSM) for the subsurface geology at the site is used. From the extensive investigations conducted to date related to the Burro Canyon geology/shallow aquifer we should all be working with the foundation that it is an anisotropic and heterogeneous sandstone aquifer with a fluvial depositional history. As discussed above, this is the model that DWMRC based the original GWDP upon, at the request of the Mill. This model also indicates that contaminant transport is likely controlled by preferential flow paths which would cause calculations based on slug tests and Darcy's law to vastly underestimate travel times. Preferential flow paths and faster travel times have at times, been recognized by the Mill, for example in HGC, 2007, and UDWMRC, for example in the original SOB for the GWDP, and at other times not recognized as possible, for example when the Tribe has raised concern that groundwater in the area of MW-22 carries a signature of mill operations. Again, all parties working with a consistent CSM would be mutually beneficial and allow us to work from a position of understanding the basic physical and chemical properties of the subsurface. The Tribe feels strongly that additional integrated site characterization at a sufficient resolution to capture the effects of the heterogeneities that direct contaminant distribution, fate, and transport, and remediation effectiveness at the site, so that an integrated three-dimensional CSM can be developed and refined should be a goal for all parties. A large step forwards in that area would be the completion of an updated isotopic study which the Tribe has worked towards at UDWMRC's recommendation. A formal project scope and plan for the isotope study has not been developed to date, and we hoped that this is an area where UDWMRC would be willing to work collaboratively together with us. The Duke University program has developed a sophisticated trace metal and isotopic characterization analytical suite and tools which they have used in a variety of characterization and contaminant tracking situations. At the conclusion of the discussion at our meeting on August 9, 2016, regarding the University of Utah Study and whether its conclusions were still valid, UDWMRC staff told the Tribe that an updated study is ded and would provide valuable data. However, UDWMRC staff also told the Tribe they felt they lacked the authority to compel the Mill to undertake such a study and lacked the internal resources to carry out such a study on their own. UDWMRC staff told the Tribe that the onus was on the Tribe to find a graduate student and program capable of undertaking an isotopic study and analysis. The message was very clear and we proceeded to find and coordinate with a capable program, Duke University. UDWMRC was informed about the intent and design of the study in at least one phone conversation with Malcom Siegel, an independent contractor hired by Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to review material associated with the Mill, and UDWMRC staff were informed in person in a meeting with Mr. Siegel in the community of White Mesa. UDWMRC may not have been informed about the field collection trip by Duke University in November of 2016. The Tribe was hoping that the Mill and the Tribe could work together in good faith with Duke University to complete the data collection phase of the study independently of UDWMRC to spare UDWMRC the burden of having to force the Mill to cooperate. Unfortunately, while the Tribe was able to facilitate data collection for a variety of important spring and well locations surrounding the facility, access to wells on the Mill site was denied by Mr. Harold Roberts the day that sample collection was planned and he delivered the message to Duke University staff that access would not be allowed willingly, and that UDWMRC would need to force them to allow access. The Tribe worked with Duke University to collect baseline samples at a variety of locations outside of the mill property and would like to help in any way possible to move the project forward towards completion by comprehensively sampling 24 wells in the Mills monitoring network. We have provided UDWMRC with the project lead's contact information and can facilitate a phone call or meeting and are willing to discuss contributing funds towards travel and analysis costs for a return trip. Please let us know how UDWMRC plans to proceed in this area and we look forward to continued technical discussions related to all of the issues in this letter and our recent correspondence. We have a strong opinion that conclusive progress needs to be made towards addressing our issues of concern prior to a proposal to re-authorize the Mills radioactive materials license is made. Sincerely, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Environmental Programs Department c: Rick Meyer, Acting, Health Officer/Environmental Health Director, San Juan Public Health Scott Hacking, P.E., UDEQ District Engineer Treasure Bailley, USEPA Region 8 References Applied Geochemistry, 2013. Miao, Ziheng. Akyol, Hakan N. McMillan, Andrew L. Brusseau, Mark L. Transport and fate of ammonium and its impact on uranium and other trace elements at a former uranium mill tailing site. Applied Geochemistry, 2008. Hart, Megan. Whitworth, T.M. Atekwana, Eliot. Hyperfiltration of sodium chloride through kaolinite membranes under relatively low heads- Implications for groundwater assessment. Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc., November 1, 2013. White Mesa Uranium Mill 2013 Annual Tailings cells Wastewater Sampling Report. Hydro Geo Chem, Inc. 2007- Site Hydrogeology and Estimation of Groundwater Travel Times in the Perched Zone White Mesa Uranium Mill Site Near Blanding, Utah. February 26, 2007. Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control, February 16, 2017. Re: Response to Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Letters Dated December 16, 2016 and January 20, 2017. DRC-2017-001146. USGS 1995. Dam, William L. Geochemistry of Ground Water in the Gallup, Dakota, and Morrison Aquifers, San Juan Basin, New Mexico. U.S. Geological Survey. Water Resources Investigations Report 94-4253. USGS 1992. Hem, John D. Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Characteristics of Natural Water Third Edition. U.S. Geological Survey Water-supply paper 2254. US EPA, 01/19/2017. Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Mill Tailings, Proposed Rule. 82 FR 7400. US EPA, September 2014. Draft Technical Report Considerations Related to Post Closure Monitoring of Uranium In-Situ Recovery (ISL/ISR) Sites Background Information Document for the Revision of 40 CFR Part 192. EPA-402-D-14-001 US EPA, August 1999. Understanding Variation in Partition Coefficient, Kd, Values. Volume 1: The Kd Model, Methods of Measurement, and Application of Chemical Reaction Codes. EPA402-R-99-004A.