DRC-2009-006040 - 0901a06880147662

h2C --^^AXA^i'CO^ l^li^
From: Loren Morton
To: Harold Roberts
CC: Bob Baird; Dane Finerfrock; John Hultquist
Date: 10/29/2009 5:27 PM
Subject: RE: Denison Mines: Cell 4B Environmental Report - URS Round 1.
Attachments: Cell4BER Rndl 091029a.doc
Harold,
Thanks. The URS Round 1 Inten-ogatory for the Cell 4B Environmental Report is attached.
Please call me ifyou would like to schedule a conference call to discuss.
Loren
>>> Harold Roberts <[e-mail]> 10/29/09 5:00 PM >>>
Loren:
Let's proceed on this basis.
Harold Roberts
Executive Vice President, US Operations
t: [phone] | f: (303) 389^125
1050 17th Street, Suite 950, Denver, CO 80265
DENISON MINES (USA) CORP
www.denisonmines.com ( http://www.deni5onmine5.com/)
TTiis e-mail is intended for exclusive use the person(s) mentioned as the reciplent(s). This message and any attached files with it
are confidential and may contain privileged or proprietary infonnation. If you are not the intended recipient(5) please delete this
message and notify the sender. You may not use, distribute print or copy this message if you are not the intended recipient(s).
From:Loren Morton rmailto:[e-mail]1
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 4:24 PM
To: Harold Roberts
Cc: Ron HocMStein; Bob Baird; Dane Finerfrock; John Hultquist
Subject: Denison Mines: Cell 4B Environmental Report - URS Round 1
Harold,
The purpose of this email is to document our discussion this morning about how the
DRC will change how we get the URS interrogatories for the Cel! 4B Environmental
Report (ER) to DUSA.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

i
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
DENISON MINES (USA) CORP
INTERROGATORIES FROM REVIEW OF LICENSE
AMENDMENT REQUEST AND ENVIRONMENTAL
REPORT FOR CELL 4B
UNDER UAC R313-24 AND UAC R317-6

INTERROGATORIES – ROUND 1

OCTOBER 29, 2009

Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS...................................................................................................IV
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B UAC R313-24-3-01A/01: ENVIRONMENTAL
ANALYSIS - RADIOLOGICAL AND NONRADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ...................................1
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B UAC R313-24-3-01B/01: ENVIRONMENTAL
ANALYSIS - IMPACT ON WATERWAYS AND GROUNDWATER ..........................................3
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B UAC R313-24-3-01C/01: ENVIRONMENTAL
ANALYSIS – ALTERNATIVES.....................................................................................................5
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B UAC R313-24-3-01D/01: ENVIRONMENTAL
ANALYSIS – LONG-TERM IMPACTS........................................................................................8
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40.26(C)(2)-02/01: GENERAL LICENSE.........11
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40.31(H)-03/01: APPLICATION FOR SPECIFIC
LICENSES.....................................................................................................................................12
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40.61-06/01: RECORDS....................................13
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40.65(A)(1)-07/01: EFFLUENT MONITORING
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.................................................................................................14
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40.INTRODUCTION-08/01: CAPACITY OF
TAILINGS OR WASTE SYSTEMS OVER THE LIFETIME OF MILL OPERATIONS ..........16
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40 APPENDIX A, INTRODUCTION-09/01:
ALTERNATIVE REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................17
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40 APPENDIX A, CRITERION 1-10/01:
PERMANENT ISOLATION WITHOUT ONGOING MAINTENANCE ...................................18
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 2-11/01:
PROLIFERATION........................................................................................................................20
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 3-12/01:
PLACEMENT BELOW GRADE..................................................................................................21
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 4-13/01:
LOCATION AND DESIGN REQUIREMENTS..........................................................................22
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 5A(1)-14/01:
GROUND-WATER PROTECTION STANDARDS ....................................................................29
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 5A(2)-15/01:
LINER............................................................................................................................................30
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 5A(4)-17/01:
PREVENT OVERTOPPING.........................................................................................................31
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 5A(5)-18/01:
DIKES............................................................................................................................................32
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 6(1)-19/01:
COVER AND CLOSURE AT END OF MILLING OPERATIONS............................................33
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 6(2)-20/01:
VERIFY EFFECTIVENESS OF FINAL RADON BARRIER.....................................................35
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 6(3)-21/01:
PHASED EMPLACEMENT OF FINAL RADON BARRIER.....................................................36
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 6(4)-22/01:
REPORT RADON BARRIER EFFECTIVENESS.......................................................................37
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 6(5)-23/01:
ELEVATED RADIUM CONCENTRATIONS IN COVER MATERIALS.................................38
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

iii
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 6(6)-24/01:
CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES OTHER THAN RADIUM IN SOIL .................39
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 6(7)-25/01:
NONRADIOLOGICAL HAZARDS.............................................................................................40
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 6A(1)-26/01:
COMPLETION OF FINAL RADON BARRIER .........................................................................41
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 7-29/01:
PREOPERATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAMS............................43
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 8-30/01:
EFFLUENT CONTROL DURING OPERATIONS .....................................................................44
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 8A-31/01:
DAILY INSPECTIONS.................................................................................................................48
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 9-32/01:
FINANCIAL SURETY ARRANGEMENTS................................................................................49
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 10-33/01:
COSTS OF LONG-TERM SURVEILLANCE .............................................................................52
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B UAC R317-6-6.3-35/01: GROUND WATER
DISCHARGE PERMIT APPLICATION......................................................................................53
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B UAC R317-6-6.4-36/01: ISSUANCE OF DISCHARGE
PERMIT.........................................................................................................................................61
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B UAC R317-6-6.9-37/01: PERMIT COMPLIANCE
MONITORING..............................................................................................................................66
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B UAC R317-6-6.10-38/01: BACKGROUND WATER
QUALITY DETERMINATION....................................................................................................68
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B UAC R317-6-6.12-40/01: SUBMISSION OF DATA...70
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B UAC R317-6-6.13-41/01: REPORTING OF
MECHANICAL PROBLEMS OR DISCHARGE SYSTEM FAILURES....................................72
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B UAC R317-6-6.10-42/01: CORRECTION OF ADVERSE
EFFECTS .......................................................................................................................................73
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B UAC R317-6-6.10-43/01: OUT-OF-COMPLIANCE
STATUS ........................................................................................................................................74
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B UAC R317-6-6.10-44/01: PROCEDURE WHEN A
FACILITY IS OUT-OF-COMPLIANCE......................................................................................76
APPENDIX A REGULATORY BASES ..................................................................................................A-i

Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

iv
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ALARA As Low As Reasonably Achievable
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BAT Best Available Technology
Cell 4B ER Environmental Report submitted in support of the Cell 4B License
Amendment Request.
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CL, CH and CL-ML Soil classes under Unified Soil Classification System
cm centimeter
DCGL Derived concentration guideline
DG Draft Regulatory Guide (NRC)
Division Utah Radiation Control Division
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
DQO Data quality objective
DUSA Denison Uranium (USA) Corporation
D&M Dames & Moore, Inc.
EA Environmental Assessment
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ER Environmental Report
FES Final Environmental Statement
FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act
g gram
gpd, gal/day gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
GW and GP Soil classes under Unified Soil Classification System
IUC International Uranium Corporation
kg kilogram
km kilometer; 1000 meters
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

v
lb pound (16 ounces)
m meter
mg/l milligram per liter
mi mile
millirem one thousandth of one Roentgen Equivalent Man
mm millimeter, 0.001 meter
m2s square meter second; used as a measure of radon flux, e.g., pCi/m2s
NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NUREG Series of reports prepared and issued by staff of USNRC
pCi picocurie; 10-12 curie
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
rem Roentgen Equivalent Man
RG Regulatory Guide (NRC)
s second
SC, SP, and SW Soil classes under Unified Soil Classification System
TDS total dissolved solids
TEDE Total Effective Dose Equivalent
UAC Utah Administrative Code
UMETCO UMETCO Minerals Corporation
URS URS Corporation, including Washington Division
USGS US Geological Survey
yd, yd2 yard, square yards
5h:1v five horizontal units (5h) to one vertical unit (1v); represents slope or
steepness
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

1
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B UAC R313-24-3-01A/01:
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 the following:
(a) An assessment of the radiological and nonradiological impacts to the public health from
the activities to be conducted pursuant to the license or amendment;
Refer to Appendix A for relevant NRC regulatory guidance.
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT:
Tabulate, analyze, summarize, and report changes of observed meteorological conditions that
have occurred since they were last updated. Incorporate changes of observed meteorological
conditions into projections of radiation doses to the general public (refer to Interrogatory White
Mesa Cell 4B 10CFR40.65(a)(1)-07/01). Alternatively, demonstrate that the impacts of such
changes on projected radiation doses to persons potentially exposed to releases from the
proposed Cell 4B are inconsequential.
Estimate the maximum annual external dose (millirems) that would be received by an individual
at the nearest site boundary from direct radiation during operations and following closure of
proposed Cell 4B. Provide an appendix describing the models, assumptions, and inputs used in
these calculations.
Identify and assess hazards and risks to human health and the environment created by all
potential constituents of concern at a site. Characterize the source term for all constituents of
concern and identify any potential or future groundwater contamination. Identify the pathways
the constituents of concern will likely follow including ingestion of contaminated water and
ingestion of contaminated foods. Identify points of exposure. Estimate the concentrations or
doses those constituents will likely produce at the location where humans or environmental
populations could be reasonably exposed. Define the spatial distributions of the various
constituents of concern of existing contaminant plumes. Provide a reasonably conservative or
best estimate and sensitivity of the potential health effects caused by human exposure to potential
constituents of concern. Identify and evaluate the risks posed by the potential constituents of
concern to environmental populations. Estimate the likelihood of human and environmental
exposure. Project impacts at the point of exposure over a 1,000-year time frame.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

2
Establish a spectrum of potential accidents involving the proposed Cell 4B by classes of
occurrence and appropriately evaluate each class of accidents. Discuss measures that DUSA has
implemented or will implement to prevent accidents and demonstrate that such measures are
adequate. Describe emergency plans and training for responding to accidents.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
The ER gives no indication that DUSA has updated the meteorological data base and the
representations of monthly and annual average conditions. Either the data base and its analyses
should be updated and revised information incorporated into other analyses or explanation
should be provided to demonstrate that the data base and related analyses have already been
updated.
The effects of accidents should be reviewed and updated to account for any incremental effects
that may be attributable in the future to Cell 4B after it has been placed into operation and
following final closure.
REFERENCES:
DG-3024 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Standard Format and Content Of
License Applications for Conventional Uranium Mills,” Draft Regulatory
Guide DG-3024, May, 2008.
NUREG-1620 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Standard Review Plan (NUREG–
1620) for Staff Reviews of Reclamation Plans for Mill Tailings Sites
Under Title II of The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act”,
NUREG-1620, June, 2003.
RG 3.8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Preparation of Environmental
Reports for Uranium Mills,” Regulatory Guide 3.8, October, 1992.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

3
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B UAC R313-24-3-01B/01:
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS - IMPACT ON WATERWAYS AND GROUNDWATER
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 the following:
(b) An assessment of any impact on waterways and groundwater resulting from the
activities conducted pursuant to the license or amendment;
Refer to Appendix A for relevant NRC regulatory guidance.
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT:
Provide updated information on use and characteristics of groundwater and surface water
resources, including aquifer horizontal and vertical permeabilities and other physical/hydraulic
properties, well drawdown characteristics for existing wells, and information on present and
projected future uses of groundwater and surface water in the area surrounding the mill site
within a minimum 10-mile radius.
Provide updated information on surface water and groundwater quality for potentially impacted
surface waters and groundwater out to at least a 1-mile radius from the site. Please define the
chemical characteristics of existing groundwater and surface water and identify methods utilized
for completing monitoring groundwater and surface water quality.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
The most current (most recent) information regarding existing groundwater and surface water
resources, surface water and groundwater quality, and groundwater and surface water uses in the
area within 5 miles of the site that was reviewed was submitted in the Reclamation Plan White
Mesa Mill, Blanding, Utah in 2000 (IUC 2000). The information provided includes only up to
the late 1990’s and needs to be updated to reflect recent and current information and conditions.
Updated information on surface water and groundwater resources and updated data on permitted
water rights for groundwater and surface water in the region surrounding the site needs to be
provided to assess if there any significant changes in nearby water uses or water availability that
could affect or be affected by activities at the site and in and around Cell 4B. Updated
information on project future surface water and groundwater uses in the surrounding region
within at least a 1-mil radius of the active mill site needs to be provided to satisfy guidelines
contained in NRC RG 3.8. Updated groundwater, surface water and groundwater quality data
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

4
may be obtained from a variety of resources such as consults (e.g., USGS National Water
Information System: Web Interface).
REFERENCES:
DUSA 2008. Denison Mines USA Corporation. Environmental Report In Support of
Construction Tailings Cell 4B, White Mesa Uranium Mill, Blanding,
Utah, April 30, 2008.
IUC 2000 International Uranium Corp., Reclamation Plan White Mesa Mill,
Blanding, Utah. Source Material Reference No. SUA-1358. Docket No.
40-8681. Revision 3.0. July 2000.
RG 3.8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Preparation of Environmental
Reports for Uranium Mills,” Regulatory Guide 3.8, October, 1992.

Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

5
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B UAC R313-24-3-01C/01:
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS – ALTERNATIVES
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 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
Refer to Appendix A for relevant NRC regulatory guidance.
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT:
Add a section to the ER that discusses the second alternative identified in the introduction to
Chapter 11, namely, “Amend the license to include the construction of Cell 4B with such additional
conditions as are considered necessary or appropriate to protect public health, safety, and the
environment. . . .”
Estimate the increase in operating and closure costs that has occurred since the costs were
estimated for the last license renewal. Justify the statement that the “. . . costs associated with the
operation of the Mill have not changed significantly but the benefits have become more evident over
time as the number of uranium mills has dwindled and the demand for uranium milling services
from local miners and the industry as whole has increased.” Present and justify the criteria used
for assessing and comparing benefits and costs where these are expressed in nonmonetary or
qualitative terms.
Summarize and update estimated costs and benefits that were earlier estimated and reported
(namely Tables 11.0-1 and 11.0-2 originally presented in D&M 1978). Provide additional support
using current information for the statement at page 34 of the Cell 4B ER that “There have been no
significant changes to the costs [and benefits] associated with the Mill since the last license renewal
in 1997 . . . .” Provide a benefit-cost evaluation in the form of a narrative accompanied by tables
and charts.
Present or cite and summarize (including concise citations) objective evidence that supports the
Cell 4B ER statement on page 31 that “The Mill has demonstrated that it is capable of continuing to
operate in a manner that satisfies all regulatory standards and ALARA goals . . . .” Explain how
the Notice and Violation and Groundwater Corrective Action Order issued by the Utah Department
of Environmental Quality in 1999 affects confidence that amending the license to allow construction
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

6
of Cell 4B will be successfully accomplished and properly operated. Explain why the necessity for
this Notice and Violation and Groundwater Corrective Action Order and DUSA’s responses do not
affect the Division’s confidence that the Mill will continue “. . . operate in a manner that satisfies all
regulatory standards . . . .”
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
It is appropriate not to address alternatives to the site or milling process, since the mill has been
and is licensed and constructed and is operating. It is also appropriate not to address engineering
alternatives to the design of the proposed Cell 4B, since the Division has approved a
substantially similar design for construction of Cell 4A and its radiological performance is
projected to be below regulatory limits.
Although the second alternative identified in Section 11.0 of the ER is not discussed in the
section, any additional license conditions that might result from this review will be considered
viable.
The factors used in evaluating the viability of alternatives to the proposed action include:
• Benefit to the regional community, including independent mining operations.
• Benefit to the uranium industry as a whole in the United States.
• Minimal incremental impact on public health, safety, and the environment that would
result from approving the proposed alternative.
• The Groundwater Quality Discharge Permit issued to the Licensee provides additional
protection for public health and the environment.
• The Mill’s track record showing safe operation in compliance with regulatory standards
and ALARA goals.
URS judges these factors to be reasonably comprehensive.
Since 1997, general construction costs have escalated by about 35 to 45 percent. It is not obvious
that such a shift in costs does not affect the cost-benefit evaluation.
Although the ER identifies costs and benefits, no basis is presented for selecting the requested
alternative. The tradeoffs between costs and benefits necessary to justify the requested
alternative should be presented and justified.
The statement at page 34 of the Cell 4B ER that “There have been no significant changes to the
costs [and benefits] associated with the Mill since the last license renewal in 1997 . . . .” is
provided without justification or elaboration. Although the statement may well be true, sufficient
changes have occurred in the yellowcake supply industry and in the costs of construction and
operations that additional information, discussion, and evaluation in support of the statement is
warranted.
The statement at page 31 of the Cell 4B ER that “. . . the Mill has operated since its inception in
compliance with all applicable regulatory standards and ALARA goals and is capable of
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

7
continuing to operate in compliance with such standards and goals” potentially contradicts the
fact that the Utah Department of Environmental Quality issued a Notice and Violation and
Groundwater Corrective Action Order in 1999 and that DUSA continues to submit
Environmental Monitoring reports in response to that order. This apparent contradiction, as it
relates to the requested license amendment, requires elaboration and clarification.
REFERENCES:
RG 3.8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Preparation of Environmental
Reports for Uranium Mills,” Regulatory Guide 3.8, October, 1992.
D&M 1978 Dames & Moore, “White Mesa Uranium Project, San Juan County, Utah”
Environmental Report prepared for Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., January
30, 1978.
NRC 1997 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1997, “Environmental Assessment
for Renewal of Source Materials License No. SUA-1358”, prepared by
USNRC in support of license renewal application, Docket No. 40-8681,
February 1997.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

8
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B UAC R313-24-3-01D/01:
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 the following:
(d) Consideration of the long-term impacts including decommissioning,
decontamination, and reclamation impacts, associated with activities to be conducted
pursuant to the license or amendment.
Refer to Appendix A for relevant NRC regulatory guidance.
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT:
Please provide an updated Reclamation Plan that considers the current concept of fully utilizing
Cells 4A and 4B for tailings management, including the long term stabilization and disposal of
tailings. The updated Reclamation Plan must account for the use of these two cells for disposal,
which will directly impact the length of slopes, precipitation runoff rates and volumes, design of
the top cap, and design of the cap side slopes including rock sizing and fill depth. Assess and
report the geotechnical stability of the tailings impoundment, including slope stability,
liquefaction, and settlement. Prepare and submit the updated Reclamation Plan, and, in
particular, discuss the final cover and long-term stabilization design for the facility, including
Cell 4B (and Cell 4A), according to requirements of NUREG-1620 and in accordance with
10CFR40 – Appendix A, Criteria 6(3) and 6A(1). Address slope stability, liquefaction, and
settlement in accordance with NUREG-1620. Address the hydrologic characteristics of the site,
including flooding potential, and erosion protection features of the tailings impoundment.
Address the radiation protection design of the tailings disposal impoundment cover for radon
and gamma attenuation. Evaluate the potential for settlement of the tailings impoundment and
cracking of the radon barrier that might result. Address plans for reclaiming and restoring lands
disturbed by mining and milling activities. Estimate costs to implement the Reclamation Plan
activities and state the financial Arrangements necessary to provide required financial
assurances. Assess and describe the long-term environmental impacts resulting from all
proposed reclamation activities.
Estimate decontamination criteria derived concentration guidelines (DCGLs) for primary
radionuclides. State data quality objectives (DQOs) for radiological surveys and sampling.
Provide final verification (status survey) plans and procedures.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

9
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
In response to this requirement, DUSA has prepared a discussion of the long term impacts
related to site operations in Section 14 of the Environmental Report. The discussion is
purposefully brief and refers the reviewer primarily to the FES (implying ‘Final Environmental
Statement Related to Operation of the White Mesa Uranium Project”, May 1979 (1979 FES)),
and secondarily to the “Mill’s Reclamation Plan” (implying “Reclamation Plan, White Mesa
Mill, Blanding, Utah, Revision 3, July 2000” (Reclamation Plan)) and the “2000 EA”. The last of
these documents was not defined in the Environmental Report, so an assumption was made of
the reference to “Environmental Assessment for Renewal of Source Material License No. SUA-
1358”, dated February 1997 (1997 EA). Section 14.0 of the ER also references Section 8 of the
“February, 2007 License Renewal Application”. Neither the 1997 (“2000”) EA, nor the License
Renewal Application, nor the 2000 Reclamation Plan contained detailed descriptions of the long-
term impacts due to the licensed activities. The Final Environmental Statement (FES) provides
adequate analysis of the long-term effects of the mill’s construction, operation,
decommissioning, and reclamation. However, the FES states in summary, “Assuming
reclamation efforts will be successful, long term impacts to the soil are not expected to be
significant”. Similar statements are made with respect to other environmental media at the site.
The existing Reclamation Plan presents a reclamation concept that is significantly different than
what is currently being considered. The Reclamation Plan suggests that only Cell 2 and 3 will be
contained beneath the final site cap, and that wastes contained in Cell 4A (which is described as
“unused”) would be consolidated within Cell 3. Under the current concept, Cell 4A is fully
utilized, as well as Cell 4B, neither of which is recognized in the 2000 Reclamation Plan.
Inclusion of these two additional cells beneath the final site cap will ultimately increase the top
closure cap area by over 50%. This significant increase in cap area will ultimately impact the
overland flow of precipitation, the potential for erosion of the top cap, and the volume of runoff
running down the south slope. These parameters must be included in the Reclamation Plan and
the long-term impacts analysis.
REFERENCES:
DUSA 2008. Denison Mines USA Corporation. Environmental Report In Support of
Construction Tailings Cell 4B, White Mesa Uranium Mill, Blanding,
Utah, April 30, 2008.
IUC 2000 International Uranium Corp., Reclamation Plan White Mesa Mill,
Blanding, Utah. Source Material Reference No. SUA-1358. Docket No.
40-8681. Revision 3.0. July 2000.
NUREG–1748 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Environmental Review Guidance
for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs.” Washington,
DC, 2001.
NUREG-1620 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Standard Review Plan for the
Review of a Reclamation Plan for Mill Tailings Sites Under Title II of the
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

10
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978.” Washington DC,
June 2003.
10 CFR 40 Appendix A to Part 40 – Criteria Relating to the Operation of Uranium
Mills and the Disposition of Tailings or Wastes Produced by the
Extraction or Concentration of Source Material From Ores Processed
Primarily for Their Source Material Content.
DG-3024 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Standard Format and Content Of
License Applications for Conventional Uranium Mills,” Draft Regulatory
Guide DG-3024, May, 2008.
RG 3.8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Regulatory Guide 3.8; Preparation
of Environmental Reports for Uranium Mills”, Washington DC, October
1982.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

11
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40.26(C)(2)-02/01: GENERAL
LICENSE
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40.26(c)(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 corrected 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 record for three years after each inspection is documented.
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT:
To Be Determined.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
To Be Determined.
REFERENCES:
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

12
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40.31(H)-03/01: APPLICATION
FOR SPECIFIC LICENSES
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40.31(h): An application for a
license to receive, possess, and use source material for uranium or thorium milling or byproduct
material, as defined in 10CFR40, at sites formerly associated with such milling shall contain
proposed written specifications relating to milling operations and the disposition of the
byproduct material to achieve the requirements and objectives set forth in Appendix A of
10CFR40. Each application must clearly demonstrate how the requirements and objectives set
forth in Appendix A of 10CFR40 have been addressed. Failure to clearly demonstrate how the
requirements and objectives in Appendix A have been addressed shall be grounds for refusing to
accept an application.
Refer to Appendix A for relevant NRC regulatory guidance.
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT:
To Be Determined.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
To Be Determined.
REFERENCES:
DG-3024 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Standard Format and Content Of
License Applications for Conventional Uranium Mills,” Draft Regulatory
Guide DG-3024, May, 2008.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

13
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40.61-06/01: RECORDS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following 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.
(3) 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
recordkeeping requirement.
(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
first-in-first-out), to make the records that are required by 10CFR40 account for 100 percent of
the material received.:
(b) The licensee shall retain each record that is required by the regulations in 10CFR40 or by
license condition for 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 Executive Secretary terminates the license that authorizes the activity that
is subject to the recordkeeping requirement.
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT:
To Be Determined.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
To Be Determined.
REFERENCES:
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

14
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40.65(A)(1)-07/01: EFFLUENT
MONITORING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40.65(a)(1): Each licensee
authorized to possess and use source material in uranium milling … shall . . . within 60 days after
January 1 and July 1 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 unrestricted
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.
Refer to Appendix A for relevant NRC regulatory guidance.
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT:
Assess the extent to which meteorological characteristics in the vicinity of the facility have
changed since the Environmental Report was revised to account for such changes. Present
revised meteorological characteristics.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
Updated meteorological characteristics at the facility should be provided to ensure that baseline
meteorological conditions to be used for assessing potential increases of concentration of
monitored effluent constituents are representative of current conditions.
Populations are concentrated generally north-northeast and south-southeast from the centroid of
the tailings area. Air monitoring stations BHV-1 and BHV-2 are located to detect releases from
the facility with winds generally from the south-southwest toward Blanding. Air monitoring
station BHV-6 is located to detect releases from the facility with winds from the northwest or
north-northwest toward the community of White Mesa. URS judges this arrangement to be
satisfactory.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

15
REFERENCES:
DG-3024 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Standard Format and Content Of
License Applications for Conventional Uranium Mills,” Draft Regulatory
Guide DG-3024, May, 2008.
NUREG-1620 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Standard Review Plan (NUREG–
1620) for Staff Reviews of Reclamation Plans for Mill Tailings Sites
Under Title II of The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act”,
NUREG-1620, June, 2003.
RG 1.23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Regulatory Guide 1.23 (Safety
Guide 23); Onsite Meteorological Programs", Washington, DC, February
1972.
RG 3.8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Preparation of Environmental
Reports for Uranium Mills,” Regulatory Guide 3.8, October, 1992.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

16
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40.INTRODUCTION-08/01:
CAPACITY OF TAILINGS OR WASTE SYSTEMS OVER THE LIFETIME OF MILL
OPERATIONS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40. Appendix A, Introduction:
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
stockpiled), the amenability of the disposal system to accommodate increased capacities without
degradation in long-term stability and other performance factors must be evaluated .
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT:
To Be Determined.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
To Be Determined.
REFERENCES:
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

17
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40 APPENDIX A,
INTRODUCTION-09/01: ALTERNATIVE REQUIREMENTS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40. Appendix A, Introduction: …
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 geology,
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.
Refer to Appendix A for relevant NRC regulatory guidance.
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT:
To Be Determined.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
To Be Detemined.
REFERENCES:
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

18
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40 APPENDIX A, CRITERION 1-
10/01: PERMANENT ISOLATION WITHOUT ONGOING MAINTENANCE
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40 Appendix A, Criterion 1: 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 natural forces, and to
do so without ongoing maintenance. For practical reasons, specific 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 among 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 long-term impacts, as opposed to consideration only of short-term
convenience or benefits, such as minimization of transportation or land acquisition costs. While
isolation of tailings will be a function of both site and engineering design, overriding
consideration must be given to siting features given the long-term 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.
Refer to Appendix A for relevant NRC regulatory guidance.
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT:
Refer to Section 14.0 of the Environmental Report and the Reclamation Plan, White Mesa Mill,
Blanding, Utah (IUC 2000):
Please demonstrate that previously submitted analyses of slope stability, settlement, and
liquefaction are applicable to the design of Cell 4B and that confidence exists that Cell 4B will
remain stable following closure, reclamation, and stabilization.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

19
Please provide information, analyses, and discussion to demonstrate that tailings will be
disposed of in a manner that requires no active maintenance to preserve conditions of the site or
to protect human health and the environment from hazards the tailings might otherwise present.
To the extent that such information, analyses, and discussion have been presented previously,
please summarize pertinent information, including concise citations to previously submitted
documents, and justify their applicability to the Cell 4B closure design.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
Because the site and facility have already been licensed, URS WD judges siting and site
characterization to satisfy applicable requirements.
Although aspects of stability (including slope stability, settlement, and liquefaction) are
discussed in general terms in the 2000 Reclamation Plan, DUSA should demonstrate that these
aspects of stability as they relate to the specific design proposed for Cell 4B are covered by the
analyses previously presented for Cell 4A and/or earlier cells, or alternatively, provide new
analyses that are appropriate for assessing the long-term stability of Cell 4B.
REFERENCES:
IUC 2000 International Uranium Corp., Reclamation Plan White Mesa Mill,
Blanding, Utah. Source Material Reference No. SUA-1358. Docket No.
40-8681. Revision 3.0. July 2000.
DG-3024 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Standard Format and Content Of
License Applications for Conventional Uranium Mills,” Draft Regulatory
Guide DG-3024, May, 2008.
NUREG-1620 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Standard Review Plan (NUREG–
1620) for Staff Reviews of Reclamation Plans for Mill Tailings Sites
Under Title II of The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act”,
NUREG-1620, June, 2003.
RG 3.8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Preparation of Environmental
Reports for Uranium Mills,” Regulatory Guide 3.8, October, 1992.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

20
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 2-
11/01: PROLIFERATION
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40 Appendix A, Criterion 2: To
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.
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT:
To Be Determined.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
To Be Determined.
REFERENCES:
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

21
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 3-
12/01: PLACEMENT BELOW GRADE
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 3: 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 reflect 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 sufficiently 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 embankments must be minimized by excavation
to the maximum extent reasonably achievable or appropriate given the geologic and hydrologic
conditions at a site. In these cases, it must be demonstrated that an above grade disposal program
will provide reasonably equivalent isolation of the tailings from natural erosional forces.
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT:
To Be Determined.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
To Be Determined.
REFERENCES:
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

22
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 4-
13/01: LOCATION AND DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 4: 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) Embankment 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 tailings were disposed of below grade; this could, for example, lead
to slopes of about 10 horizontal to 1 vertical (10h:1v) or less steep. In general, slopes should not
be steeper than about 5h:1v. Where steeper slopes are proposed, reasons why a slope less steep
than 5h:1v 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 cover employed to reduce
wind and water erosion to negligible levels.
Where a full vegetative cover 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 traffic or by natural process, and to preclude
undercutting and piping:
• Shape, size, composition, and gradation of rock particles (excepting bedding material average
particles size must be at least cobble size or greater);
• Rock cover thickness and zoning of particles by size; and
• Steepness of underlying slopes.
Individual rock fragments must be dense, sound, and resistant to abrasion, and must be free from
cracks, seams, and other defects that would tend to unduly increase their destruction by water
and frost 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
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

23
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 cover on slopes, areas
toward which surface runoff might be directed must be well protected with substantial rock cover
(rip rap). In addition to providing for stability of the impoundment system itself, overall stability,
erosion potential, and geomorphology of surrounding terrain must 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 defined in
section III(g) of Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 100. The term "maximum credible earthquake"
means that earthquake which would cause the maximum vibratory ground motion based upon an
evaluation of earthquake potential considering the regional and local geology and seismology
and specific characteristics of local subsurface material.
(f) The impoundment, where feasible, should be designed to incorporate features which will
promote deposition. For example, design features which promote deposition of sediment
suspended in any runoff which flows into the impoundment area might be utilized; the object of
such a design feature would be to enhance the thickness of cover over time.
Refer to Appendix A for relevant NRC regulatory guidance.
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT:
Indicate, out to 8-km (5-mi) radius, the nature and extent of present and projected land use (e.g.,
agriculture, livestock raising, dairies, pasturelands, residences, wildlife preserves, sanctuaries,
hunting areas, industries, recreation, transportation) and any recent trends such as major or
unexpected changes in population or industrial land use patterns.
Identify the location, nature, and amounts of present and projected ground-water use (e.g., water
supplies, irrigation, reservoirs, recreation, and transportation) within 16 km (10 mi) of the site
and the present and projected population (during the active life of the mill) associated with each
use point. Information provided for each use point should include:
• Location
• Distance from mill
• Withdrawal rate
• Return rates
• Type of water use
• Depth of wells
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

24
• Groundwater elevation
• Drawdown rates
• Source and projection of water-use estimates
Provide descriptive information to give recent changes in the locations and populations of
neighboring schools; facilities; hospitals; and residential areas within 8 km (5 mi).
Demonstrate that soils in the area where Cell 4B will be constructed are not unstable because of
their physical or chemical properties, locations, and dimensions. Address compressibility; rate
of consolidation; shear strength (including, for sensitive soils, possible loss of shear strength
resulting from strain-softening); liquefaction potential; permeability; dispersion characteristics;
swelling and shrinkage; long-term moisture content for radon barrier material; and cover
cracking.
Update records of historical ground-water-level fluctuations at the site.
Please state the proposed maximum slope of the stabilized tailings impoundment that includes
the Cell 4B area. Justify any slope steeper than 5h:1v and explain why gentler slopes are
impracticable. Identify and justify any design enhancements incorporated to provide assurance
that the stabilized impoundment will remain stable without reliance on active measures following
closure.
Describe measures taken to stabilize the final cover system following closure that includes the
Cell 4B area.
Discuss the most recent data on seismic events in the region that are applicable to the White
Mesa site and identify any implications for design criteria applicable to the design of the
facility, including the final closure design for Cell 4B, for ensuring long-term stability; and
present and justify the results of any design calculations prepared to incorporate any revised
design criteria.
Identify any changes in the nature and extent of present and projected land use (e.g., agriculture,
livestock raising, dairies, pasturelands, residences, wildlife preserves, sanctuaries, hunting
areas, industries, recreation, transportation) that have occurred since the 1978 ER (D&M 1978)
was prepared. Identify any recent trends such as major or unexpected changes in population or
industrial patterns have occurred since the 1978 ER (D&M 1978) was prepared.
Provide in tabular form for each of the 22-1/2-degree sectors, the distances [to a distance of 8
km (5 mi)] from the center of the site to the following:
• Nearest cattle (or other meat animals) grazing on natural forage, with types and
numbers of animals specified.
• Nearest game animals consumed by sportsmen.
• Nearest residence.
• Nearest site boundary.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

25
• Nearest vegetable garden larger than 50 m2 (60 yd2) in area. The type of crop and
amounts produced should be noted.
Provide data on annual production and distribution of meat (kg) and truck farming produce (kg)
within an 80-km (50-mi) radius from the proposed facility. Provide information on grazing
season (months of year) and feeding regimens for cattle. Please provide specific information on
actual consumption of the meat from cattle and game animals.
Identify any changes in the locations, natures, and amounts of present and projected surface and
ground-water use (e.g., water supplies, irrigation, reservoirs, recreation, and transportation)
within 16 km (10 mi) of the site. Identify any changes in the present and projected population
(during the active life of the mill) associated with each use point, where appropriate.
Summarize and tabulate data on changes in both present and projected future water use; locate
users on maps of legible scale. Tabulations should include:
• Location: Changes in locations of water users.
• Distances of user from mill.
• Withdrawal rate: Changes in present and projected withdrawal rates (in liters per
second or cubic meters per second) for each water use, including seasonal
variability.
• Return rates: Changes in present and projected return rates (in liters per second or
cubic meters per second), if appropriate, including seasonal variability..
• Type of water use: Changes in types of water use for each location, e.g., municipal,
industrial, irrigation, stock/game watering.
• In addition, for ground-water use: Indicate changes in depths of wells, groundwater
elevation, and drawdown rates and characterize the use of each aquifer.
• Source and projection of water-use estimates: Where use rates are anticipated to
change over the life of the project and beyond, indicate projections and the source of
the projection information.
Provide changes in the projected population by direction and distance from the site within a 5-
mile radius of the mill for the anticipated life of the mill. Identify and discuss significant
transient or seasonal population variations, including the bases for assumptions and projections.
Provide an evaluation of changes in prominent meteorological parameters prevailing at the site
that have occurred since the 1978 ER (D&M 1978) was prepared. Summarize site meteorology
based on meteorological measurements taken onsite and at nearby representative stations,
including:
• Quarterly and annual wind rose presentation for the 16 compass directions.
• Quarterly and annual wind speed, wind direction, and atmospheric stability data in
joint frequency form at heights representative of effluent releases.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

26
• Total precipitation and evaporation by month.
• Diurnal and monthly averages and extremes of temperature and humidity
• Monthly wind characteristics including speeds and direction, annual joint frequency
of windspeed, and direction by stability category
• Data on precipitation
• Frequency of occurrence and effects of storms.
To the extent warranted by changes in site meteorology, Identify and justify changes in design
features that may result from any changes in design basis events.
Present and justify background concentrations of radionuclides in groundwater that has resulted
from responding to recent Division directives (URS 2008).
Present and justify parameter values used to characterize mill tailings, including the following:
• Compressibility and rate of consolidation
• Shear strength, including, for sensitive soils, possible loss of shear strength resulting
from strain-softening
• Liquefaction potential
• Permeability
• Dispersion characteristics
• Swelling and shrinkage
• Long-term moisture content for radon barrier material
• Cover cracking
Provide a detailed description of the applicable field and laboratory investigations and testing
that were completed, and summarize material properties (e.g., permeability, moisture-density
relationships, gradation, shrinkage and dispersive characteristics, resistance to freeze-thaw
degradation, cracking potential, and chemical compatibility, including any amendment
materials)
Present details (including sketches) of the disposal cell cover termination at boundaries, with
any considerations for safely accommodating subsurface water flows.
Provide a schematic diagram displaying various disposal cell layers and thicknesses. Establish
the particle size gradation of the disposal cell bedding layer and the rock layer to ensure
stability against particle migration during the period of regulatory interest.
Demonstrate that the effects of possible freeze-and-thaw cycles on soil strength and radon
barrier effectiveness do not compromise their long-term stability or ability to function as
required. Demonstrate that freezing and formation of ice crystals and lenses will not cause
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

27
heaving. Demonstrate that soil is not susceptible to frost heave, considering that uniformly
graded soils containing more than 10 percent of particles smaller than 0.02 mm and well-graded
soils with more than 3 percent of particles smaller than 0.02 mm are susceptible.
Present an analysis of the potential for cracks to develop in the disposal cell cover as a result of
differential settlement and shrinkage.
Demonstrate that any geomembranes included in the final cover(s) are adequate for the
proposed disposal cell cover and describe their major properties (e.g., physical, mechanical, and
chemical). Discuss methods for membrane installation. Demonstrate that the shear strength of
the interface between compacted clay and geomembranes is appropriately considered in the
stability analyses under both static and dynamic loads is noted.
Demonstrate that information on site characterization, slope stability, settlement, and
liquefaction used in the disposal cell cover design appropriately is appropriately reflected in the
evaluation, and therefore, constitutes inputs that would contribute to the demonstration of
disposal cell design compliance with the regulations.
Demonstrate that the design erosion protection covers for the site conform to the suggested
criteria in NUREG–1623 (NRC 2002). Demonstrate that the proposed cover design will meet
longevity requirements without the use of active maintenance.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
The 2000 Reclamation Plan suggests that only Cell 2 and 3 will be contained beneath the final
site cap, and that wastes contained in Cell 4A (which is described as “unused”) would be
consolidated within Cell 3. Under the current concept, Cell 4A is fully utilized, as well as Cell
4B, neither of which is recognized in the 2000 Reclamation Plan. Inclusion of these two
additional cells beneath the final site cover(s) will ultimately increase the top closure cover area
by over 50%. A discussion of the final facility closure design that includes final closure of
additional disposal areas (e.g., Cells 4A and 4B) and that accurately reflects current site
development plans and current site conditions needs to be provided.
REFERENCES:
DG-3024 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Standard Format and Content Of
License Applications for Conventional Uranium Mills,” Draft Regulatory
Guide DG-3024, May, 2008.
NUREG-1620 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Standard Review Plan (NUREG–
1620) for Staff Reviews of Reclamation Plans for Mill Tailings Sites
Under Title II of The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act”,
NUREG-1620, June, 2003.
RG 3.8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Preparation of Environmental
Reports for Uranium Mills,” Regulatory Guide 3.8, October, 1992.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

28
D&M 1978 Dames & Moore, “White Mesa Uranium Project, San Juan County, Utah”
Environmental Report prepared for Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., January
30, 1978.
NRC 2002 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Design of Erosion Protection for
Long-Term Stabilization. NUREG-1623. Final Report. T.L. Johnson
September 2002. U.S. N.R.C., Washington DC, 1988.
URS 2008 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), 39400260.10200, June 16,
2008.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

29
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION
5A(1)-14/01: GROUND-WATER PROTECTION STANDARDS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 5A(1):
The primary ground-water protection standard is a design standard for surface impoundments
used to manage uranium and thorium byproduct material. Unless exempted under paragraph
5A(3) of this criterion, surface impoundments (except for an existing portion) must have a liner
that is designed, constructed, and installed to prevent any migration of wastes out of the
impoundment to the adjacent subsurface soil, ground water, or surface water at any time during
the active life (including the closure period) of the impoundment. The liner may be constructed
of materials that may allow wastes to migrate into the liner (but not into the adjacent subsurface
soil, ground water, or surface water) during the active life of the facility, provided that
impoundment closure includes removal or decontamination of all waste residues, contaminated
containment system components (liners, etc.), contaminated subsoils, and structures and
equipment contaminated with waste and leachate. For impoundments that will be closed with the
liner 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 the facility.
Refer to Appendix A for relevant NRC regulatory guidance.
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT:
To Be Determined.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
To Be Determined.
REFERENCES:
NUREG-1620 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Standard Review Plan (NUREG–
1620) for Staff Reviews of Reclamation Plans for Mill Tailings Sites
Under Title II of The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act”,
NUREG-1620, June, 2003.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

30
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION
5A(2)-15/01: LINER
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 5A(2):
The liner required by paragraph 5A(1) above must be:
(a) 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;
(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.
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT:
To Be Determined.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
To Be Determined.
REFERENCES:
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

31
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION
5A(4)-17/01: PREVENT OVERTOPPING
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix 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.
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT:
To Be Determined.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
To Be Determined.
REFERENCES:
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

32
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION
5A(5)-18/01: DIKES
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 5A(5):
When dikes are used to form the surface impoundment, the dikes must be designed, constructed,
and maintained with sufficient 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
leakage during the active life of the impoundment.
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT:
To Be Determined.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
To Be Determined.
REFERENCES:
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

33
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION
6(1)-19/01: COVER AND CLOSURE AT END OF MILLING OPERATIONS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(1): In
disposing of waste byproduct material, licensees shall place an earthen cover (or approved
alternative) over tailings or wastes at the end of milling operations and shall close the waste
disposal area in accordance with a design which provides reasonable assurance of control of
radiological hazards to (i) be effective for 1,000 years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and,
in any case, for at least 200 years, and (ii) limit releases of radon-222 from uranium byproduct
materials, and radon-220 from thorium byproduct materials, to the atmosphere so as not to
exceed an average release rate of 20 picocuries per square meter per second (pCi/m2s) to the
extent practicable throughout the effective design life determined pursuant to (1)(i) of this
Criterion. In computing required tailings cover thicknesses, moisture in soils in excess of
amounts found normally in similar soils in similar circumstances may not be considered. Direct
gamma exposure from the tailings or wastes should be reduced to background levels. The effects
of any thin synthetic layer may not be taken into account in determining the calculated radon
exhalation level. If non-soil materials are proposed as cover materials, it must be demonstrated
that these materials will not crack or degrade by differential settlement, weathering, or other
mechanism, over long-term intervals.
Refer to Appendix A for relevant NRC regulatory guidance.
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT:
Please provide an updated Reclamation Plan that includes the proposed design of the final
cover systems for the disposal cells, including Cells 4A and 4B, and addresses the design of the
radon barrier layer(s), including thickness and assumptions regarding initial and long-term
moisture content(s) in the radon barrier(s).
Provide an assessment of long-term radon emission rates for the final cover system(s). Include
assumptions and present and describe analysis methodologies used.
Address the radiation protection design of the tailings disposal impoundment cover for radon
and gamma attenuation and assess the potential for settlement of the tailings impoundment and
resulting cracking of the radon barrier.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
The 2000 Reclamation Plan suggests that only Cell 2 and 3 will be contained beneath the final
site cap, and that wastes contained in Cell 4A (which is described as “unused”) would be
consolidated within Cell 3. Under the current concept, Cell 4A is fully utilized, as well as Cell
4B, neither of which is recognized in the 2000 Reclamation Plan. Inclusion of these two
additional cells beneath the final site cover(s) will ultimately increase the top closure cover area
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

34
by over 50%. A discussion of the radon barrier characteristics in the final closure cover(s) and an
analysis of the effectiveness of these radon barrier layers in limiting long-term radon emissions
through the final closure cover(s) need to be presented.
REFERENCES:
DG-3024 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Standard Format and Content Of
License Applications for Conventional Uranium Mills,” Draft Regulatory
Guide DG-3024, May, 2008.
IUC 2000 International Uranium (USA) Corporation (IUC): Reclamation Plan –
White Mesa Mill, Blanding, Utah. Source Material Reference No. SUA-
1358. Docket No. 40-8681. Rev. 3, July 2000.
NUREG-1620 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Standard Review Plan (NUREG–
1620) for Staff Reviews of Reclamation Plans for Mill Tailings Sites
Under Title II of The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act”,
NUREG-1620, June, 2003.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

35
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION
6(2)-20/01: VERIFY EFFECTIVENESS OF FINAL RADON BARRIER
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(2):
As soon as reasonably achievable after emplacement of the final cover to limit releases of radon-
222 from uranium byproduct material and prior to placement of erosion protection barriers or
other features necessary for long-term control of the tailings, the licensee shall verify through
appropriate testing and analysis that the design and construction of the final radon barrier is
effective in limiting releases of radon-222 to a level not exceeding 20 pCi/m2s averaged over the
entire pile or impoundment using the procedures described in 40 CFR part 61, appendix B,
Method 115, or another method of verification approved by the Executive Secretary as being at
least as effective in demonstrating the effectiveness of the final radon barrier.
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT:
To Be Determined.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
To Be Determined.
REFERENCES:
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

36
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION
6(3)-21/01: PHASED EMPLACEMENT OF FINAL RADON BARRIER
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(3):
When phased emplacement of the final 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 barrier for that portion
is emplaced.
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT:
Provide information regarding the schedule for and manner of placement of the final radon
barrier over the disposal cell areas, including Cell 4B. Describe any proposed phasing of radon
barrier placement. Describe methods to be used to verify the effectiveness of these radon barrier
layers in limiting long-term emissions (e.g., radon) through the final closure cover(s.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
The 2000 Reclamation Plan (IUC 2000) suggests that only Cell 2 and 3 will be contained
beneath the final site cap, and that wastes contained in Cell 4A (which is described as “unused”)
would be consolidated within Cell 3. Under the current concept, Cell 4A is fully utilized, as well
as Cell 4B, neither of which is recognized in the 2000 Reclamation Plan. Inclusion of these two
additional cells beneath the final site cover(s) will ultimately increase the top closure cover area
by over 50%. A discussion of the schedule for and manner of any phased placement of the radon
barrier as part of the construction of the final closure cover(s) needs to be presented.
REFERENCES:
IUC 2000 International Uranium (USA) Corporation (IUC): Reclamation Plan –
White Mesa Mill, Blanding, Utah. Source Material Reference No. SUA-
1358. Docket No. 40-8681. Rev. 3, July 2000.
10 CFR 40 Appendix A to Part 40 – Criteria Relating to the Operation of Uranium
Mills and the Disposition of Tailings or Wastes Produced by the
Extraction or Concentration of Source Material From Ores Processed
Primarily for Their Source Material Content.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

37
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION
6(4)-22/01: REPORT RADON BARRIER EFFECTIVENESS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, 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 10CFR40, Appendix 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
State for long-term care if requested
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT:
To Be Determined.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
To Be Determined.
REFERENCES:
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

38
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION
6(5)-23/01: ELEVATED RADIUM CONCENTRATIONS IN COVER MATERIALS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following 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 elevated levels of radium; soils used for near surface cover must be essentially the same,
as far as radioactivity is concerned, as that of surrounding surface soils. This is to ensure that
surface radon exhalation is not significantly above background because of the cover material
itself.
Refer to Appendix A for relevant NRC regulatory guidance.
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT:
Demonstrate that adequate quantities are available of all proposed rock cover materials of
suitable characteristics required for construction (such as provided in Section 7.2.1 of NUREG
1623) of all remaining covers if DUSA requests are granted.
Demonstrate that the radium concentrations of candidate rock materials do not exceed
background levels for the vicinity of the White Mesa facility and will not appreciably affect
radon fluxes projected for the cover system following construction.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
Implementing the proposed design, if found acceptable, depends on availability of adequate
quantities of suitable materials. Demonstration must be provided that adequate quantities are
reasonably and practically available.
REFERENCES:
NUREG-1620 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Standard Review Plan (NUREG–
1620) for Staff Reviews of Reclamation Plans for Mill Tailings Sites
Under Title II of The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act”,
NUREG-1620, June, 2003.
NUREG 1623 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Design of Erosion Protection for
Long-Term Stability”, NUREG-1623, September 2002.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

39
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION
6(6)-24/01: CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES OTHER THAN RADIUM IN
SOIL
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following 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 (ii) 15 pCi/g of radium-226, or, in the case of thorium byproduct
material, radium-228, averaged over 15-cm thick layers more than 15 cm below the surface.
Byproduct material containing concentrations of radionuclides other than radium in soil, and
surface activity on remaining structures, must not result in a total effective 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 100-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. The 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 11, 1999.
Refer to Appendix A for relevant NRC regulatory guidance.
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT:
To Be Determined.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
To Be Determined.
REFERENCES:
RG 3.8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Preparation of Environmental
Reports for Uranium Mills,” Regulatory Guide 3.8, October, 1992.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

40
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION
6(7)-25/01: NONRADIOLOGICAL HAZARDS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following 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.
Refer to Appendix A for relevant NRC regulatory guidance.
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT:
To Be Determined.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
To Be Determined.
REFERENCES:
RG 3.8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Preparation of Environmental
Reports for Uranium Mills,” Regulatory Guide 3.8, October, 1992.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

41
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION
6A(1)-26/01: COMPLETION OF FINAL RADON BARRIER
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 6A(1):
For impoundments containing uranium byproduct materials, the final radon barrier 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 technological feasibility
as specifically defined in the Introduction of this appendix includes factors beyond the control of
the licensee.) Deadlines for completion of the final radon barrier and, if 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 erosion protection barriers
or other features necessary for long-term control of the tailings must also be completed in a
timely manner in accordance with a written, Executive Secretary-approved reclamation plan.
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT:
Provide information regarding the schedule for and manner of placement of the final radon
barrier over the disposal cell areas, including Cell 4B. Demonstrate that the final radon barrier
will be placed as expeditiously as practicable considering technological feasibility after the
disposal cell areas or impoundments cease operation.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
The 2000 Reclamation Plan (IUC 2000) suggests that only Cell 2 and 3 will be contained
beneath the final site cap, and that wastes contained in Cell 4A (which is described as “unused”)
would be consolidated within Cell 3. Under the current concept, Cell 4A is fully utilized, as well
as Cell 4B, neither of which is recognized in the 2000 Reclamation Plan. Inclusion of these two
additional cells beneath the final site cover(s) will ultimately increase the top closure cover area
by over 50%. A discussion of the schedule for and manner of radon barrier placement as part of
the construction of the final closure cover(s) needs to be presented.
REFERENCES:
IUC 2000 International Uranium (USA) Corporation (IUC): Reclamation Plan –
White Mesa Mill, Blanding, Utah. Source Material Reference No. SUA-
1358. Docket No. 40-8681. Rev. 3, July 2000.
10 CFR 40 Appendix A to Part 40 – Criteria Relating to the Operation of Uranium
Mills and the Disposition of Tailings or Wastes Produced by the
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

42
Extraction or Concentration of Source Material From Ores Processed
Primarily for Their Source Material Content.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

43
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 7-
29/01: PREOPERATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAMS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 7: At
least one full year prior to any major site construction, a preoperational 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 long-term effects.
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT:
To Be Determined.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
To Be Determined.
REFERENCES:

Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

44
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 8-
30/01: EFFLUENT CONTROL DURING OPERATIONS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following 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 source. Notwithstanding the
existence of individual dose standards, strict control of emissions is necessary to assure 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 from radon
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.
Checks must be made and logged hourly of all parameters (e.g., differential pressures and
scrubber water flow rates) that determine the efficiency 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 efficiency; corrective
action must be taken when performance is outside of prescribed ranges. Effluent control devices
must be operative at all times during drying and packaging operations and whenever air is
exhausting from the yellowcake stack. Drying and packaging operations must terminate when
controls are inoperative. When checks indicate the equipment is not operating within the range
prescribed for peak efficiency, actions must be taken to restore parameters to the prescribed
range. When this cannot be done without shutdown and repairs, drying and packaging operations
must cease as soon as practicable. Operations may not be restarted after cessation due to off-
normal performance until needed corrective actions have been identified and implemented. All
these cessations, corrective 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 sheltered from
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 diffuse sources, such as tailings and ore pads where automatic controls do not apply,
operators shall develop written operating procedures specifying the methods of control which
will be utilized.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

45
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.
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 Standards,
subpart C, Uranium, Radium, and Vanadium Ores Subcategory," as codified on January 1, 1983.
Refer to Appendix A for relevant NRC regulatory guidance.
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT:
Provide current information and analyses that demonstrate that milling operations are and will
be conducted so that all airborne effluent releases are reduced to levels that are as low as is
reasonably achievable (ALARA). Include an analysis of the efficiency of the equipment as
designed and operated that prevent radiation exposures to employees and members of the public
and that limit such exposures to ALARA levels.
Provide a description of mill waste and effluent control systems and equipment for minimizing to
as low as is reasonably achievable the quantities of materials released into the environment.
Specify quantities, concentrations, and physical, chemical, and radiological characteristics of all
materials released that depend upon characteristics of ore being processed and state how these
parameters affect projected dose rates. Average and maximum release rates should be addressed
plus all pertinent supporting information such as assumptions and computational methods used.
Please present and discuss information concerning any cumulative buildup of radionuclides in
the environment. Summarize data, assumptions, and models used in determining radioactivity
concentrations and burdens. Estimate the maximum radionuclide concentrations that may be
present in important local flora and local and migratory fauna. Values of bioaccumulation
factors used in preparing the estimates should be based on site-specific data if available;
otherwise, values from the literature may be used. The applicant should tabulate and reference
the values of bioaccumulation factors used in the calculations.
Describe in detail the proposed effluent and environmental monitoring programs, including
methods and procedures for measuring concentrations and quantities of both radioactive and
non-radioactive materials released to the environs from the proposed Cell 4B and neighboring
cells. In the description of the proposed monitoring programs, include the technical basis used to
determine that environmental concentrations comply with applicable regulatory requirements
Describe the proposed sampling program to determine concentrations of airborne radioactive
materials (including radon) during routine and non-routine operations, maintenance, and
cleanup activities. In the description of the sampling program, address the following:
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

46
• Criteria for determining sampling locations with respect to process operations and
personnel occupancy,
• Frequency of sampling,
• Type of analyses,
• Sensitivity of overall sampling and analyses,
• Action levels,
• Management audits,
• Corrective action requirements,
• Instrumentation calibration frequency, and
• Procedures for sample analyses and instrument calibration (in an appendix).
Describe the detection monitoring program to be used to determine whether process effluents
are reaching site ground water supplies from Cell 4B and neighboring cells. Describe the
planned monitoring to detect the presence of process effluents in any local surface waters.
Provide the technical basis for the monitoring programs, including the number and location of
monitoring stations, the criteria used for locating sampling stations and determining sampling
frequency, and action levels and corrective action requirements. Provide procedures for sample
collection and analyses for the constituents of concern found in tailings liquor in an appendix.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
Since the license was initially issued, many technological innovations have been made. These
improvements create the possibility that ALARA levels of airborne effluent release levels are
lower than originally judged reasonable. DUSA should identify and evaluate new options to
demonstrate whether additional airborne emissions control measures are currently reasonable.
To the extent that ores likely to be currently processed differ in their physical, chemical, and
radiological characteristics, projected release s from the facility will also differ. These
differences should be identified, and their effects quantified.
The 1978 ER erroneously states that “Radioactive material added to the environment will not
accumulate but will become diluted and dispersed into a much wider area, becoming
undetectable within a short distance from the mill [page 5-6 of D&M 1978].” This statement
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

47
may be true for instantaneous concentrations in the atmosphere, but ignores potential
biodegradation and the deposition of particulate matter that accumulates downwind from the
operating mill and tailings impoundments over time. Additional evaluation is required to
demonstrate the current condition and the potential that radioactive concentrations might yet
accumulate to the extent that additional measures should be taken now to preclude hazards that
can reasonably be avoided.
REFERENCES:
DG-3024 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Standard Format and Content Of
License Applications for Conventional Uranium Mills,” Draft Regulatory
Guide DG-3024, May, 2008.
RG 3.8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Preparation of Environmental
Reports for Uranium Mills,” Regulatory Guide 3.8, October, 1992.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

48
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION
8A-31/01: DAILY INSPECTIONS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following 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.
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT:
To Be Determined.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
To Be Determined.
REFERENCES:
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

49
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 9-
32/01: FINANCIAL SURETY ARRANGEMENTS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 9:
Financial surety arrangements must be established by each mill operator prior to the
commencement of operations to assure that sufficient funds will be available to carry out the
decontamination and decommissioning of the mill and site and for the reclamation of any tailings
or waste disposal areas. The amount of funds to be ensured by such surety arrangements must be
based on Executive Secretary-approved cost estimates in a Executive Secretary-approved plan
for (1) decontamination and decommissioning of mill buildings and the milling site to levels
which allow unrestricted use of these areas upon decommissioning, and (2) the 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 long-term surveillance and control required by Criterion 10.
In establishing specific surety arrangements, the licensee's cost estimates must take into account
total costs that would be incurred if an independent contractor were hired to perform the
decommissioning and reclamation work. In order to 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 such 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 site and associated areas, and the long-term funding charge
is clearly identified and committed for use in accomplishing these activities. The licensee's
surety mechanism will be reviewed annually by the Executive Secretary to assure, that sufficient
funds would be available for completion of the reclamation plan if the work had to be performed
by an independent contractor. 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 affecting costs. Regardless of whether reclamation is phased
through the life of the operation or takes place at the end of operations, an appropriate portion of
surety liability must be retained until final compliance with the reclamation plan is determined.
This will yield a surety that is at least sufficient at all times to cover the costs of
decommissioning and reclamation of the areas that are expected to be disturbed before the next
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
assurance would be provided with a surety instrument which is written for a specified period of
time (e.g., 5 years) yet which must be automatically renewed unless the surety notifies the
beneficiary (the 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 surety
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

50
requirement still exists and the licensee would be required to submit an acceptable replacement
surety 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 licensee
could 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 arrangements 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
(f) Combinations of the above or such other types of arrangements as may be approved by the
Executive 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 license requirements.
Refer to Appendix A for relevant NRC regulatory guidance.
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT:
To Be Determined.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
To Be Determined.
REFERENCES:
DG-3024 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Standard Format and Content Of
License Applications for Conventional Uranium Mills,” Draft Regulatory
Guide DG-3024, May, 2008.
NRC 1988 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Technical Position on Financial
Assurances for Restoration, Decommissioning, and Long-Term
Surveillance and Control of Uranium Recovery Facilities”, Washington
DC, 1988.
NUREG-1620 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Standard Review Plan (NUREG–
1620) for Staff Reviews of Reclamation Plans for Mill Tailings Sites
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

51
Under Title II of The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act”,
NUREG-1620, June, 2003.
RG 3.8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Preparation of Environmental
Reports for Uranium Mills,” Regulatory Guide 3.8, October, 1992.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

52
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION
10-33/01: COSTS OF LONG-TERM SURVEILLANCE
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following 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 payment to recognize inflation. The inflation rate
to be used is that indicated by the change in the Consumer Price Index published by the U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT:
Provide an engineering estimate of the costs attributable to the proposed Cell 4B of conducting
long-term surveillance in compliance with all requirements applicable to US DOE’s long-term
stewardship program. Demonstrate that the estimated cost will be acceptable to US DOE.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
The Division must be assured that the amounts of financial assurances proposed for the facility
will be acceptable to the US DOE under its long-term stewardship program.
REFERENCES:
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

53
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B UAC R317-6-6.3-35/01: GROUND
WATER DISCHARGE PERMIT APPLICATION
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes UAC R317-6 in lieu of 10CFR40 Appendix A, Criterion 5B(1) thru 5H,
Criterion 7A, and Criterion 13. In turn, UAC R317-6-6.3 outlines the content requirements of a
State Ground Water Discharge Permit (Permit) application.
Unless otherwise determined by the Executive Secretary, the application for a permit to discharge
wastes or pollutants to ground water shall include the following complete information:
A. The name and address of the applicant and the name and address of the owner of the
facility if different than the applicant. A corporate application must be signed by an officer
of the corporation. The name and address of the contact, if different than above, and
telephone numbers for all listed names shall be included.
B. The legal location of the facility by county, quarter-quarter section, township, and range.
C. The name of the facility and the type of facility, including the expected facility life.
D. A plat map showing all water wells, including the status and use 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 flow
direction, ground water quality, aquifer material, and well logs.
F. The type, source, and chemical, physical, radiological, and toxic characteristics of the
effluent or leachate to be discharged; the average and maximum daily amount of effluent or
leachate discharged (gpd), the discharge rate (gpm), and the expected concentrations of any
pollutant (mg/l) in each discharge or combination of discharges. If more than one discharge
point is used, information for each point must be given separately.
G. Information 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 surface
water quality standards, that the discharge is compatible 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 the
facility.
H. For areas where the ground water has not been classified by the Board, information on
the quality of the receiving ground water sufficient to determine the applicable protection
levels.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

54
I. A proposed sampling and analysis monitoring plan which conforms to EPA Guidance for
Quality Assurance Project Plans, EPA QA/G-5 (EPA/600/R-98/018, February 1998) and
includes a description, where appropriate, of the following:
1. ground water monitoring to determine ground water flow 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,
including post-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 Water Sampling EPA/600/2-85/104, (November 1985) and RCRA Ground
Water 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
thickness, flow direction, porosity, hydraulic conductivity, and flow systems characteristics.
L. The compliance sampling plan which in addition to the information specified in the above
item I includes, where appropriate, provisions for sampling of effluent 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 following
references unless otherwise specified by the Executive Secretary:
1. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, twentieth
edition, 1998; Library of Congress catalogue number: ISBN: 0-87553-235-7.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

55
2. E.P.A. Methods, Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, 1983;
Stock Number EPA-600/4-79-020.
3. Techniques of Water Resource Investigations of the U.S. Geological Survey,
(1998); Book 9.
4. Monitoring requirements in 40 CFR parts 141 and 142, 2000 ed., Primary
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 the flooding potential of the discharge site, including the 100-year flood
plain, and any applicable flood protection measures.
N. Contingency plan for regaining and maintaining compliance with the permit 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 corrective action plan or identification of other response
measures to be taken to remedy any violation of applicable ground water quality standards,
class TDS limits or permit limit established under R317-6-6.4E. 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 performed under the
direction, and bear the seal, of a professional engineer or professional geologist.
S. A closure and post closure management plan demonstrating measures to prevent ground
water contamination during the closure and post closure phases of an operation.
Reference can be made to DG-3024 (e.g., Sections 3.1 through 3.3), NUREG-1620 (e.g., Sections
2.6.3 and 2.7.3), and RG 3.8 (e.g., Sections 1, 3.3, and 4.1) as appropriate for additional guidance on
topics listed above.
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT:
Provide a detailed geologic map for the site, including the footprint area and vicinity of
proposed Cell 4B. Include geologic cross sections with geology to characterize the surface and
subsurface conditions in the Cell 4B area.
Provide additional information on the potential presence and distribution of fractures and/or
joints, and uncemented/higher permeability intervals in the unsaturated and saturated zone
portions of the Dakota Sandstone and Burro Canyon geologic units underlying the site area,
including the footprint area of and downgradient vicinity of proposed Cell 4B. Define and
provide information regarding all present and assumed future potential points of discharge for
effluent or leachate, including sump collection areas of the disposal cells as applicable, Provide
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

56
information on the relationship between any inferred fractures and/or joints, and
uncemented/higher permeability intervals and the potential future location(s) of seepage from
the disposal cells, including Cell 4B. Evaluate and discuss the potential effects of such features
on permeability values and other aquifer properties and evaluate their potential effects on
groundwater flow pathways and flow rates, including estimated contaminant travel times to the
perched groundwater zone, beneath and downgradient of the disposal cells, including Cell 4B.
Summarize the potential impacts of such fractures/joints in these formations on the predicted
performance of containment systems that will be installed in the waste disposal/containment
cells, including Cell 4B.
Provide information to demonstrate that existing groundwater compliance monitoring wells
MW-5, MW-12, and MW-15 would be preserved and maintained during Cell 4B construction
operations. Describe measures to be implemented to protect these monitoring wells during cell
construction and provide criteria to be used for determining that repair or replacement of these
wells is required if damage occurs to any of these wells during Cell 4B construction.
Please provide well logs for wells MW-3, MW-4, MW-5, MW-11, MW-12, MW-14, MW-15,
MW-20, MW-21, MW-22, MW-23, and temporary perched water zone wells TW4-4 and TW4-5.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
U.S. N.R.C. Regulatory Guide 3.8 (NRC 1982), Section 2.5 specifies that detailed geological
data at building sites and in the vicinity of tailings or other effluent impoundments, sanitary
landfills, spoil disposal areas, and sewage disposal facilities should be included in licensing
submittals related to license applications/license amendment requests. This guide specifies that
these geologic data should include strike and dip and lateral and vertical distribution of
permeable layers, shales, and clays, and data on any fault, fracture, or joint pattern that may
exist. This guide also specifies that locations of local outcroppings where seepage from landfills,
dumps, impoundments, and sewage facilities is likely to occur should be noted.
U.S. N.R.C. Regulatory Draft Guidance DG-3024 (NRC 2008), Section 2.4.1, specifies that
geologic aspects of the site need to be described in licensing submittals related to license
applications/license amendment requests. This guidance document also specifies that the broad
features and general characteristics of the site and environs, including stratigraphy and structural
geology should be noted and documented, and characteristics of the subsurface soil or rock,
including identification and evaluation of zones of deformation that might act as conduits for
contaminants, be described.
The 1978 Environmental Report (e.g., see Dames & Moore 1978., p. 2-106) indicates the
following: “…jointing is common in the exposed Dakota-Burro Canyon sandstones along the
mesa’s rim…more often than not, the primary joints are parallel to the cliff faces and the
secondary joints are almost perpendicular to the primary joints… two sets of joint attitudes exist
[in these sandstone units] ..to the west side of the project site…These sets range from N.10-180 E
and N.60-85 E0 and nearly parallel to the cliff faces”.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

57
In addition, information provided by UMETCO (UMETCO 1993, p, 2-3) indicates that “during
an investigation of the White Mesa site, a number of fracture attitudes were measured (in the
Dakota and Burro Canyon sandstone units) along the rims of Corral and Cottonwood Canyons
[in the general site area], ..(with) analysis of the data indicating the presence of two joint sets…
[and] distances between the joints in each set varies from 5 to 20 feet, …the primary joints strike
from north-south to N200 E with a vector mean of N110 E and the secondary fractures have a
strike ranging between N400 W to N600 W with a vector mean of N470 W… All joint sets
observed were near vertical to vertical.”
A number of borings previously were drilled within and south and southwest (downgradient) of
the Cell 4B footprint (e.g., Borings 16, 19, 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, and 28) (D & M 1978). The depth
of most of these borings ranged from 9 ft to approximately 24 ft below ground surface, with the
exception of two borings that extended to approximately 127 ft (Boring 19) and approximately
133 ft (Boring 28). The boring log for Borehole No. 19 (see Dames & Moore 1978, Plate A-9;
International Uranium Corporation [IUC] 2000, Figure 1.5.3-1), installed in the same general
vicinity as the proposed Cell 4B footprint, indicates considerable horizontal fracturing may be
present at one or more depth zones within the Dakota Sandstone unit underlying and/or adjacent
to the area of proposed Cell 4B. That boring log also indicates the occurrence of some orange
iron staining and considerable limonite staining along bedding fractures (which suggest zones of
localized movement of water) as well as some uncemented zones of rock within the Dakota
Sandstone materials. Furthermore, the boring log for Borehole No. 28, drilled about 2,200 feet
south of the proposed Cell 4B footprint (Dames & Moore [D & M] 1978, Plate A-11) also
suggests that fractures and/or uncemented zones may exist at one or more depth intervals in the
Dakota and/or Burro Canyon sandstone units in the general vicinity of the White Mesa Mill
disposal cells.
An injection test conducted within the Dakota unit in Boring 19 penetrating the Dakota and
Burro Canyon units yielded permeability values that differed by more two orders of magnitude,
depending on whether the tested interval spanned a zone containing “considerable near
horizontal fracturing and some orange staining” (permeability of 9.12 x 10-4 cm/cec) or had no
reported fracturing (permeability 6.77 x 10-6 cm/sec ). These data suggest that fractures and/or
variable conditions present within this unit underlying and downgradient of the disposal cells
area could affect groundwater flow rates, and possibly also locally affect the direction of
groundwater flow beneath the site. By inference, joint sets, fracture networks, and uncemented
zones in the Dakota and Burro Canyon units could allow for flow in directions different than
those currently inferred.
Also, the 1978 Environmental Report (D & M 1978, p. 2-107) indicates that “the Dakota
Sandstone… is poorly to highly cemented…[and] losses of drilling fluids during the subsurface
geotechnical investigation [that was conducted at the White Mesa mill site] indicate that open
fractures or very permeable layers exist within the formation….”
The information summarized above is consistent with the information provided in the 2008 ER
which states (DUSA 2008, pp. 6 and 12) that “No significant joints or fractures within the
Dakota Sandstone or Burro Canyon Formation have been documented in any wells or borings
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

58
installed across the site (Knight Piesold, 1998). Any fractures observed in cores collected from
site borings are typically cemented, showing no open space”.
Additional information needs to be provided to resolve/explain the above discrepancies and
inconsistencies. Joint sets, fractures and/or variably uncemented intervals in the geologic units
underlying and downgradient of the disposal cell areas could likely effect groundwater flow rates
and groundwater flow directions beneath and downgradient of the site, including creating the
potential for preferential flow pathways. Limited data are available regarding the presence and
potential distribution of these features in these areas, especially at deeper depths, leading to
uncertainties in groundwater flow characteristics in the perched water zone beneath and
downgradient of the disposal cells exists. Additional information needs to be provided on the
potential distribution of these features in order to allow a more comprehensive review of
potential impacts of subsurface characteristics of the Dakota and Burro Canyon Formation on
subsurface seepage and to evaluate potential seepage flow pathways from the disposal cell areas,
including Cell 4B.
Information presented in Appendix A of the ER (Hydro Geo Chem, Inc. [HGCI] 2008) also
indicates that “relatively high permeabilities measured at MW-11, located on the southeastern
margin of the downgradient edge of tailings Cell 3, and at MW-14, located on the downgradient
edge of tailings cell 4[A], of 1.4 x 10-3 cm/s and 7.5 x 10-4 cm/s, respectively (UMETCO 1993),
may indicate that this zone [of higher permeability ]extends beneath the southeastern margin of
the [disposal] cells”. This report also states, however, that additional available borehole data
suggests that “this zone of higher permeability within the perched water zone does not appear to
exist downgradient (south-southwest) of the tailings cells…” The appropriateness of this
conclusion has not been reviewed, pending further review of copies of additional boring logs
requested by this interrogatory.
Additional geologic information for the subsurface materials beneath Cell 4B is also needed to
support review of a proposed blasting plan for the Cell 4B area.
EPA Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans, EPA QA/G-5 (EPA/600/R-98/018, February
1998) specifies that a description of the plans and specifications relating to construction,
modification, and operation of discharge systems be included, and that information on the
installation, use and maintenance of monitoring devices should be provided. Section 10.2, Proposed
Additional Groundwater Monitoring, of the Environmental Report (DUSA 2008) specifies that two
new wells will be installed and utilized for monitoring, in addition to the wells already incorporated
in the compliance monitoring program as described in the Groundwater Discharge Permit.
Monitoring wells MW-5, MW-12, MW-15, and MW-16 are some of the wells that are
incorporated in the compliance monitoring program. These wells are located in areas that could
be disturbed during construction of Cell 4B, according to Figures 7, 8, 10, and 11 of the
Environmental Report. These wells are part of the proposed compliance monitoring program and
therefore should be maintained and preserved. Information should be provided to explain
measures to be taken to ensure these wells will be protected during construction, criteria to repair
wells if damaged during construction, and/or a plan included to decommission and replace these
wells if necessary, in accordance with EPA and applicable State of Utah well construction/well
abandonment standards. The 2009 Technical Specifications for the Construction of Cell 4B
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

59
Lining System, Section 1.01 (Geosyntec 2009), address the abandonment of existing monitoring
well MW-16; however, there is no discussion of the need to protect, repair, or decommission and
replace monitoring wells MW-5, MW-12, or MW-15 if damage to these wells were to occur.
Well specifications and/or boring logs need to be provided for the wells considered in the
proposed compliance monitoring program. Boring logs for the specified boreholes also need to
be provided as supporting data. Boring logs for wellbores WMMW-16 through WMMW-19 are
already included in UMETCO 1993.
REFERENCES:
D & M 1978 Environmental Report - White Mesa Uranium Project, San Juan County,
Utah for Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. January 30, 1978.
D & M 1978 Environmental Report - White Mesa Uranium Project, San Juan County,
Utah for Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. January 30, 1978.
DUSA 2008. Denison Mines USA Corporation. Environmental Report In Support of
Construction Tailings Cell 4B, White Mesa Uranium Mill, Blanding,
Utah, April 30, 2008.
Geosyntec 2009 Geosyntec Consultants, Technical Specifications for the Construction of
Cell 4B Lining System, White Mesa Mill, Blanding, Utah, January 2009.
IUC 2000 International Uranium (USA) Corporation (IUC): Reclamation Plan –
White Mesa Mill, Blanding, Utah. Source Material Reference No. SUA-
1358. Docket No. 40-8681. Rev. 3, July 2000.
DG-3024 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Standard Format and Content Of
License Applications for Conventional Uranium Mills,” Draft Regulatory
Guide DG-3024, May, 2008.
NUREG-1620 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Standard Review Plan (NUREG–
1620) for Staff Reviews of Reclamation Plans for Mill Tailings Sites
Under Title II of The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act”,
NUREG-1620, June, 2003.
RG 3.8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Preparation of Environmental
Reports for Uranium Mills,” Regulatory Guide 3.8, October, 1992.
UGW370004 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 1993 UMETCO Minerals Corporation; Peel Environmental Services.
Groundwater Study, White Mesa Mill. January 1993.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

60
HGCI 2008 Hydro Geo Chem Inc., “Site Hydrogeology, Estimation Of Groundwater
Travel Times And Recommended Additional Monitoring Wells For
Proposed Tailings Cell 4b White Mesa Uranium Mill Site Near Blanding,
Utah” (included as Appendix A to the Environmental Report), report dated
January 8, 2008.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

61
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B UAC R317-6-6.4-36/01: ISSUANCE OF
DISCHARGE PERMIT
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes UAC R317-6-6.4 in lieu of comparable requirements in 10CFR40:
A. The Executive Secretary may issue a ground water discharge permit for a new facility if the
Executive Secretary determines, after reviewing the information provided under R317-6-6.3,
that:
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;
2. the monitoring plan, sampling and reporting requirements are adequate to determine
compliance with applicable requirements;
3. the applicant is using best available technology to minimize the discharge of any
pollutant; and
4. there is no impairment of present and future beneficial uses of the ground water.
B. The Board mayapprove an alternate concentration limit for a new facility if:
1. The applicant submits a petition for an alternate concentration limit showing the extent to
which the discharge will exceed the applicable class TDS limits, ground water standards or
applicable protection levels and demonstrates that:
a. the facility is to be located in an area of Class III ground water;
b. the discharge plan incorporates the use of best available technology;
c. the alternate concentration limit is justified based on substantial overriding social
and economic benefits; and,
d. the discharge would pose no threat to human health and the environment.
2. One or more public hearings have been held by the Board in nearby communities to
solicit comment.
C. The Executive Secretary may issue a ground water discharge permit for an existing facility
provided:
1. the applicant demonstrates that the applicable class TDS limits, ground water quality
standards and protection levels will be met;
2. the monitoring plan, sampling and reporting requirements are adequate to determine
compliance with applicable requirements;
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

62
3. the applicant utilizes treatment and discharge minimization technology commensurate
with plant process design capability and similar or equivalent to that utilized by facilities
that produce similar products or services with similar production process technology;
and,
4. there is no current or anticipated impairment of present and future beneficial uses of the
ground water.
D. The Board may approve an alternate concentration limit for a pollutant in ground water at an
existing facility or facility permitted by rule under R317-6-6.2 if the applicant for a ground
water discharge permit shows the extent the discharge exceeds the applicable class TDS limits,
ground water quality standards and applicable protection levels that correspond to the otherwise
applicable ground water quality standards and demonstrates that:
1. steps are being taken to correct the source of contamination, including a program and
timetable for completion;
2. the pollution poses no threat to human health and the environment; and
3. the alternate concentration limit is justified based on overriding social and economic
benefits.
E. An alternate concentration limit, once adopted by the Board under R317-6-6.4B or R317-6-6.4D,
shall be the pertinent permit limit.
F. A facility permitted under this provision shall meet applicable class TDS limits, ground water
quality standards, protection levels and permit limits.
G. The Board may modify a permit for a new facility to reflect standards adopted as part of
corrective action.
Refer to Appendix A for relevant NRC regulatory guidance.
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT:
To complete the application for a Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit (Permit), provide the
following information or identify documents in which DUSA has already provided such
information:
• An updated plat map showing all water wells, including the status and use 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.
• 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
flow direction, ground water quality, aquifer material, and well logs.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

63
• The type, source, and chemical, physical, radiological, and toxic characteristics of
the effluent or leachate to be discharged; the average and maximum daily amount of
effluent or leachate discharged (gpd), the discharge rate (gpm), and the expected
concentrations of any pollutant (mg/l) in each discharge or combination of
discharges. If more than one discharge point is used, information for each point must
be given separately.
• Information 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 surface water quality standards, that the discharge is compatible 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 the facility.
• For areas where the ground water has not been classified by the Board, information
on the quality of the receiving ground water sufficient to determine the applicable
protection levels.
• A proposed sampling and analysis monitoring plan which conforms to EPA Guidance
for Quality Assurance Project Plans, EPA QA/G-5 (EPA/600/R-98/018, February
1998) and includes a description, where appropriate, of the following:
9 Ground water monitoring to determine ground water flow direction and
gradient, background quality at the site, and the quality of ground water at
the compliance monitoring point;
9 Installation, use and maintenance of monitoring devices;
9 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;
9 Monitoring of the vadose zone;
9 Measures to prevent ground water contamination after the cessation of
operation, including post-operational monitoring;
9 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 Water Sampling EPA/600/2-85/104, (November
1985) and RCRA Ground Water Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance
Document (1986), unless otherwise specified by the Executive Secretary;
9 Description and justification of parameters to be monitored;
9 Quality assurance and control provisions for monitoring data.
• The plans and specifications relating to construction, modification, and operation of
discharge systems.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

64
• 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 thickness, flow direction, porosity, hydraulic conductivity, and
flow systems characteristics.
• For any existing facility, a corrective action plan or identification of other response
measures to be taken to remedy any violation of applicable ground water quality
standards, class TDS limits or permit limit established under R317-6-6.4E. which has
resulted from discharges occurring prior to issuance of a ground water discharge
permit.
• Contingency plan for regaining and maintaining compliance with the permit limits
and for reestablishing best available technology as defined in the permit.
• A closure and post closure management plan demonstrating measures to prevent
ground water contamination during the closure and post closure phases of an
operation.
Provide information including narrative descriptions, figures, table, drawings, analyses, and
supporting documentation to demonstrate that:
• Applicable class TDS limits, ground water quality standards and protection levels will
be met if the proposed amendment is granted.
• The monitoring plan, including sampling and reporting commitments, are adequate to
determine compliance with applicable requirements.
• DUSA utilizes treatment and discharge minimization technology commensurate with
plant process design capability and similar or equivalent to that utilized by facilities that
produce similar products or services with similar production process technology.
• DUSA projects that no impairment of present and future beneficial uses of the ground
water will result from the proposed amendment.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
The Division requires additional information relevant to the measures taken to protect
groundwater and their projected effectiveness.
REFERENCES:
DG-3024 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Standard Format and Content of
License Applications for Conventional Uranium Mills,” Draft Regulatory
Guide DG-3024, May, 2008.
NUREG-1620 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Standard Review Plan (NUREG–
1620) for Staff Reviews of Reclamation Plans for Mill Tailings Sites
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

65
Under Title II of The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act”,
NUREG-1620, June, 2003.
RG 3.8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Preparation of Environmental
Reports for Uranium Mills,” Regulatory Guide 3.8, October, 1992.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

66
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B UAC R317-6-6.9-37/01: PERMIT
COMPLIANCE MONITORING
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes UAC R317-6-6.9 in lieu of comparable requirements in 10CFR40:
A. Ground Water Monitoring
The Executive Secretary may include in a ground water discharge permit requirements for ground
water monitoring, and may specify compliance monitoring points where the applicable class TDS
limits, ground water quality standards, protection levels or other permit limits are to be met.
The Executive Secretary will determine the location of the compliance monitoring point based upon
the hydrology, type of pollutants, and other factors that may affect 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. Performance Monitoring
The Executive Secretary may include in a ground water discharge permit requirements for
monitoring performance of best available technology standards.
Refer to Appendix A for relevant NRC regulatory guidance.
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT:
Provide information demonstrating that the proposed groundwater monitoring system, including
the proposed new monitoring wells (MW-33 and MW-34) installed downgradient of future Cell
4B, together with well MW-14 and MW-15 (if preserved), and the other existing 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 disposal cells, including Cell 4B, considering the potential
distribution of fractures and/or joints, and uncemented intervals/higher permeability zones in the
subsurface geologic units underlying/downgradient of the disposal cells area.
Evaluate whether an alternative conceptual model or models (such as one incorporating
“preferential” flow through fractures, joints, uncemented/higher permeability zones, etc., and/or
different hypothetical future source term [leakage] locations, such as from beneath one or more
sumps in one or more of the disposal cells including Cell 4B), if considered, would affect the
locations, screened interval(s), and/or required number of POC wells for providing
timely/reliable detection of potential releases from the disposal cells area.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

67
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
NUREG-1620 (NRC 2003), Section 4.3.3.4, requires that the compliance monitoring program
implemented at this type of facility monitor all ground-water exposure pathways to assure that
any potential exceedances of the proposed alternate concentration limit will be detected before
the license is terminated. The guidance provided in NUREG-1620 indicates that the compliance
monitoring well locations should not be restricted solely to the point of compliance. Some
locations between the point of compliance and the points of exposure should be included to
assure the identified aquifer attenuation mechanisms are reducing the hazardous constituent
concentrations to the predicted levels, and indicates that the applicable maximum contaminant
level, background concentration, or other maximum permissible limit should be used as the
compliance monitoring limit for wells at the points of exposure, in those cases where compliance
monitoring is conducted at the points of exposure.
A specific evaluation of the proposed downgradient groundwater monitoring well locations, well
spacing, and well screened intervals relative to postulated future contaminant plume locations
and dimensions that could emanate from the disposal cell areas, including Cell 4B, needs to be
provided. The information provided needs to be sufficient to allow review of the suitability and
adequacy of the proposed compliance monitoring network. The compliance monitoring program
needs to reflect the range of hydrogeologic/groundwater flow conditions (e.g., including
preferential flow through fractures, joints, and or uncemented/higher permeability zones) that are
reasonably foreseeable as applicable to the site.
REFERENCES:
DUSA 2008. Denison Mines USA Corporation. Environmental Report In Support of
Construction Tailings Cell 4B, White Mesa Uranium Mill, Blanding,
Utah, April 30, 2008.
DG-3024 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Standard Format and Content Of
License Applications for Conventional Uranium Mills,” Draft Regulatory
Guide DG-3024, May, 2008.
NUREG-1620 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Standard Review Plan (NUREG–
1620) for Staff Reviews of Reclamation Plans for Mill Tailings Sites
Under Title II of The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act”,
NUREG-1620, June, 2003.
RG 3.8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Preparation of Environmental
Reports for Uranium Mills,” Regulatory Guide 3.8, October, 1992.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

68
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B UAC R317-6-6.10-38/01: BACKGROUND
WATER QUALITY DETERMINATION
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes UAC R317-6-6.10 in lieu of comparable requirements 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 from existing
information or from data collected by the permit applicant. Existing information shall be used, if 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 required for 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 fluctuations in concentrations. Applicable
up-gradient, and on-site ground water monitoring data shall be included in the ground water quality
permit monitoring report.
Refer to Appendix A for relevant NRC regulatory guidance.
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT:
To Be Determined.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
To Be Determined.
REFERENCES:
DG-3024 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Standard Format and Content Of
License Applications for Conventional Uranium Mills,” Draft Regulatory
Guide DG-3024, May, 2008.
NUREG-1620 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Standard Review Plan (NUREG–
1620) for Staff Reviews of Reclamation Plans for Mill Tailings Sites
Under Title II of The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act”,
NUREG-1620, June, 2003.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

69
RG 3.8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Preparation of Environmental
Reports for Uranium Mills,” Regulatory Guide 3.8, October, 1992.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

70
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B UAC R317-6-6.12-40/01: SUBMISSION
OF DATA
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes UAC R317-6-6.12 in lieu of comparable requirements in 10CFR40:
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
All field analyses to determine compliance with these regulations shall be conducted in accordance
with standard procedures specified in R317-6-6.3.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.
Refer to Appendix A for relevant NRC regulatory guidance.
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT:
Provide evidence demonstrating that all laboratory analysis of samples collected to determine
compliance with groundwater protection standards have been performed in accordance with
standard procedures by the Utah Division of Laboratory Services or by a laboratory certified by
the Utah Department of Health.
Provide evidence demonstrating that all field analyses to determine compliance with
groundwater protection standards have been conducted in accordance with standard procedures
specified in R317-6-6.3.L.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
No statements have been provided in the ER or the 2000 Reclamation Plan to indicate that the
specified applicable standard procedures have been met for the sample analyses that have been
performed or sample analysis results submitted.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

71
REFERENCES:
DG-3024 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Standard Format and Content Of
License Applications for Conventional Uranium Mills,” Draft Regulatory
Guide DG-3024, May, 2008.
NUREG-1620 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Standard Review Plan (NUREG–
1620) for Staff Reviews of Reclamation Plans for Mill Tailings Sites
Under Title II of The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act”,
NUREG-1620, June, 2003.
RG 3.8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Preparation of Environmental
Reports for Uranium Mills,” Regulatory Guide 3.8, October, 1992.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

72
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B UAC R317-6-6.13-41/01: REPORTING
OF MECHANICAL PROBLEMS OR DISCHARGE SYSTEM FAILURES
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes UAC R317-6-6.13 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 system failures that could affect the chemical characteristics or volume of
the discharge. A written statement confirming the oral report shall be submitted to the Executive
Secretary within five days of the failure.
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT:
To Be Determined.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
To Be Determined.
REFERENCES:
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

73
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B UAC R317-6-6.10-42/01: CORRECTION
OF ADVERSE EFFECTS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes UAC R317-6-6.14 in lieu of comparable requirements in 10CFR40:
A. If monitoring or testing indicates that the permit conditions may be or are being violated by
ground water discharge operations or the facility is otherwise in an out-of-compliance status, the
permittee shall promptly make corrections to the system to correct all violations of the discharge
permit.
B. The permittee, operator, or owner may be required to take corrective action as described in
Refer to Appendix A for relevant NRC regulatory guidance.
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT:
To Be Determined.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
To Be Determined.
REFERENCES:
DG-3024 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Standard Format and Content Of
License Applications for Conventional Uranium Mills,” Draft Regulatory
Guide DG-3024, May, 2008.
NUREG-1620 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Standard Review Plan (NUREG–
1620) for Staff Reviews of Reclamation Plans for Mill Tailings Sites
Under Title II of The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act”,
NUREG-1620, June, 2003.
RG 3.8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Preparation of Environmental
Reports for Uranium Mills,” Regulatory Guide 3.8, October, 1992.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

74
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B UAC R317-6-6.10-43/01: OUT-OF-
COMPLIANCE STATUS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes UAC R317-6-6.16 in lieu of comparable requirements in 10CFR40:
A. Accelerated Monitoring for Probable Out-of-Compliance Status
If the value of a single analysis of any compliance parameter in any compliance monitoring sample
exceeds an applicable permit limit, the facility shall:
1. Notify the Executive Secretary in writing within 30 days of receipt of data;
2. Immediately initiate monthly sampling if the value exceeds both the background
concentration of the pollutant by two standard deviations and an applicable permit limit,
unless the Executive Secretary determines that other periodic sampling is appropriate, for a
period of two months or until the compliance status of the facility can be determined.
B. Violation of Permit Limits
Out-of-compliance status exists when:
1. The value for two consecutive samples from a compliance monitoring point exceeds:
a. one or more permit limits; and
b. the background concentration for that pollutant by two standard deviations (the
standard deviation and background (mean) being calculated using values for the
ground water pollutant at that compliance monitoring point) unless the existing
permit limit was derived from the background pollutant concentration plus two
standard deviations; or
2. The concentration value of any pollutant in two or more consecutive samples is
statistically significantly higher than the applicable permit limit. The statistical significance
shall be determined using the statistical methods described in Statistical Methods for
Evaluating Ground Water Monitoring Data from Hazardous Waste Facilities, Vol. 53, No.
196 of the Federal Register, Oct. 11, 1988 and supplemental guidance in Guidance For Data
Quality Assessment (EPA/600/R-96/084 January 1998).
C. Failure to Maintain Best Available Technology Required by Permit
1. Permittee to Provide Information
In the event that the permittee fails to maintain best available technology or otherwise fails
to meet best available technology standards as required by the permit, the permittee shall
submit to the Executive Secretary a notification and description of the failure according to
R317-6-6.13. Notification shall be given orally within 24 hours of the permittee's discovery
of the failure of best available technology, and shall be followed up by written notification,
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

75
including the information necessary to make a determination under R317-6-6.16.C.2, within
five days of the permittee's discovery of the failure of best available technology.
Refer to Appendix A for relevant NRC regulatory guidance.
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT:
To Be Determined.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
To Be Determined.
REFERENCES:
DG-3024 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Standard Format and Content Of
License Applications for Conventional Uranium Mills,” Draft Regulatory
Guide DG-3024, May, 2008.
NUREG-1620 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Standard Review Plan (NUREG–
1620) for Staff Reviews of Reclamation Plans for Mill Tailings Sites
Under Title II of The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act”,
NUREG-1620, June, 2003.
RG 3.8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Preparation of Environmental
Reports for Uranium Mills,” Regulatory Guide 3.8, October, 1992.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

76
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B UAC R317-6-6.10-44/01: PROCEDURE
WHEN A FACILITY IS OUT-OF-COMPLIANCE
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes UAC R317-6-6.17 in lieu of comparable requirements in 10CFR40:
A. If a facility is out of compliance the following is required:
1. The permittee shall notify the Executive Secretary of the out of compliance status within
24 hours after detection of that status, followed by a written notice within 5 days of the
detection.
2. The permittee shall initiate monthly sampling, unless the Executive Secretary determines
that other periodic sampling is appropriate, until the facility is brought into compliance.
3. The 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 technology 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 BAT for approval by the Executive Secretary.
Refer to Appendix A for relevant NRC regulatory guidance.
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT:
To Be Determined.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
To Be Determined.
REFERENCES:
DG-3024 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Standard Format and Content Of
License Applications for Conventional Uranium Mills,” Draft Regulatory
Guide DG-3024, May, 2008.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
October 29, 2009; Interrogatory Round 1

77
NUREG-1620 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Standard Review Plan (NUREG–
1620) for Staff Reviews of Reclamation Plans for Mill Tailings Sites
Under Title II of The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act”,
NUREG-1620, June, 2003.
RG 3.8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Preparation of Environmental
Reports for Uranium Mills,” Regulatory Guide 3.8, October, 1992.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-i

APPENDIX A
REGULATORY BASES

Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-1
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B UAC R313-24-3-01A/01:
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 the following:
(a) An assessment of the radiological and nonradiological impacts to the public health from
the activities to be conducted pursuant to the license or amendment;
Relevant NRC Guidance
Geology and Soils (Land)
Regulatory Guide (RG) 3.8, Section 6.1.4.1: Those geological and soil studies designed
to determine the environmental impact of the construction or operation of the mine/mill
should be described. The description should include identification of the sampling pattern
and the justification for its selection, the sampling method, holding periods, preanalysis
treatment, and analytic techniques. Other geological and soil studies (e.g., those
conducted in support of safety analyses) should be briefly summarized and reference
made to the relevant reports for a more detailed presentation.
Exposure Pathways
RG 3.8, Section 5.2.1: The various possible pathways for radiation exposure of humans
should be identified and described in textual and flow chart format.
Discuss any exposure pathways, if they exist, involving radionuclide accumulation in
specific components of the environment.
Liquid Effluents
RG 3.8, Section 5.2.2: Estimate the expected annual average concentrations of radioactive
nuclides . . . in receiving water at locations where water is consumed or otherwise used by
human beings or where it is inhabited by biota of significance to human food chains.
Specify the dilution factors used in preparing the estimates and the locations where the
dilution factors are applicable. Consideration should be given to the absence of mixing and
dilution because of factors such as channeling.
Determine the expected radionuclide concentrations in aquatic and terrestrial organisms
significant to human food chains. Use . . . bioaccumulation factors [based on site-specific
data if available; otherwise, values from the literature may be used].
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-2
Using the above information and any other necessary supporting data, calculate the total
annual body and significant organ doses (millirems) to individuals in the population . . .
from all exposure pathways related to receiving water, i.e., all sources of internal and
external exposure. Provide, as an appendix, details of the models and assumptions used in
these calculations.
Airborne Effluents
RG 3.8, Section 5.2.3: From release rates of airborne radioactivity and meteorological data .
. . estimate total annual body and significant organ doses (millirems) to individuals exposed
at the point of maximum ground-level concentrations offsite, individuals exposed at the site
boundary in the direction of the prevailing wind, individuals exposed at the site boundary
nearest to the sources of emission, and individuals exposed at the residence expected to
receive the highest dose commitments. Assume annual average meteorological conditions.
Identify locations of points of release (e.g., stacks, roof vents, tailings ponds and beach
areas, and ore storage areas) used in calculations.
Estimate deposition of radioactive materials on food crops and pasture grass and any
bioaccumulation in the human food chain. Estimate total annual body doses (millirems) and
significant annual doses received by other organs via such potential pathways.
Provide an appendix describing the models used in these calculations.
Direct Radiation
RG 3.8, Section 5.2.4: The applicant should provide an estimate of the maximum annual
external dose (millirems) that would be received by an individual at the nearest site
boundary from direct radiation. Provide an appendix describing the models and assumptions
used in these calculations.
Effects of Sanitary and Other Waste Discharges
RG 3.8, Section 5.4: Describe and discuss the environmental impact associated with
sanitary and other mill waste systems.
Other Effects
RG 3.8, Section 5.5: Discuss any effects of operation that do not clearly fall under any
single topic [addressed above]. These may include changes in land and water use at the
project site, interaction of the facility with other existing or projected neighboring facilities,
effect of ground-water withdrawal on ground-water resources in the vicinity of the mine and
mill, effects of construction and operation of roads, transmission corridors, and railroads,
effects on fish and wildlife resource usage, effects of changes in surface-water availability
on biotic populations, and disposal of solid and liquid wastes other than those already
discussed.
Hazard Assessment
NUREG-1620, Section 4.3.3.1: The hazard assessment identifies all potential
constituents of concern at a site. A potential constituent of concern is any compound that
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-3
may be in or could be derived from the uranium mill tailings at a licensed site. A non-
inclusive list of constituents of concern is in UAC R317-6. The risks and hazards to
human health and the environment associated with those constituents are also identified
and evaluated to determine whether an alternate concentration limit should be proposed
for those constituents, if the subsequent exposure assessment concludes that an exposure
is reasonably likely. Once a constituent of concern is released into the ground-water, it is
classified as a hazardous constituent for the purpose of regulatory compliance, as
described in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(2). The hazard assessment
should include the following:
(1) The source term for all constituents of concern is adequately characterized and
the extent of existing and potential future ground-water contamination is
determined.
The source term characterization provides relevant information about the facility
including: (a) the mechanical and chemical processes used to recover the uranium,
(b) the types and quantities of the reagents used in milling, (c) the physical and
chemical composition of the uranium-bearing ore, and (d) the historical and
current waste and tailings management practices. This information is considered,
in conjunction with the physical and chemical composition of the tailings and the
type and distribution of existing contaminants, such as the location of waste
discharge points, retaining structures for wastes, and waste constituents. The
source characterization should provide reliable estimates of the release rates of
hazardous constituents as well as constituent distributions.
(2) The assessment identifies and evaluates the risks and hazards presented by the
identified constituents of concern, including the human cancer risk caused by
exposure to radioactive and non-radioactive constituents of concern, along with
other health hazards that may be caused by the chemical toxicity of those
constituents. The human cancer risk should be evaluated for individual
constituents, including radioactive and carcinogenic chemicals, and compared
with the maximum permitted risk level. The health effects of non-radioactive and
non-carcinogenic constituents that are chemically toxic will be evaluated
considering their risk-specific dose levels. It may be necessary to calculate a
hazard index using the reference doses for those chemicals that have threshold
effects. The hazard index is the ratio of calculated intake to the reference dose. An
acceptable hazard index must be less than one. These evaluations distinguish
between the health effects associated with threshold and non-threshold
constituents. Mutagenic, teratogenic, and synergistic effects are considered in the
analysis, if applicable, based on toxicological testing, or structure-activity
relationships.
The following additional information on constituent properties is provided, as
applicable: (a) density, solubility, valence state, vapor pressure, viscosity, and
partitioning coefficient; (b) presence and effects of complexing ligands and
chelating agents that may enhance constituent mobility; (c) potential for a
constituent to degrade because of biological, chemical, and physical processes;
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-4
and (d) constituent attenuation properties, considering such processes as ion
exchange, sorption, precipitation, dissolution, and ultrafiltration. This information
would also be applied in the exposure assessment.
(3) The assessment provides a reasonably conservative or best estimate of the
potential health effects caused by human exposure to the hazardous constituent.
The potential health effects for each constituent with a proposed alternate
concentration limit must be identified, and related to appropriate exposure limits
and dose-response relationships from available literature or databases. Sources of
exposure limit and dose-response information include the EPA’s maximum
concentration limits for drinking water, reference doses, or risk-specific doses.
Reference doses are the amounts of chemically toxic constituents to which
humans may be daily exposed without suffering adverse effects.
Risk-specific doses are the amounts of proven or suspected carcinogenic
constituents to which humans can be daily exposed, without increasing their risk
of contracting cancer above a specified risk level. The reference dose and risk-
specific dose assessment assume a human mass of 70 kg [154 lb] and
consumption of 2 liters of water per day [0.53 gal/day]. More stringent criteria
may apply if sensitive populations are exposed to hazardous constituents.
Maximum concentration limits, reference doses, and/or risk-specific doses, can be
used to show compliance with the risk level and hazard indexes. The technical
basis for a risk assessment can be based on the dose-response relationships
described in the scientific literature searches or toxicological research, in the
absence of applicable maximum concentration limits, reference doses, or risk-
specific doses. The exposure analysis should distinguish between threshold (toxic)
and non-threshold (carcinogenic) effects associated with human exposure, as well
as teratogenic, fetotoxic, mutagenic, and synergistic effects.
The maximum concentration limits, reference doses, and risk-specific doses for
most hazardous constituents can be obtained from the EPA (http://www.epa.gov),
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/atsdrhome.html), or other government institutions and
universities. Effects from radioactivity can be obtained from the International
Commission on Radiological Protection, and the National Council on Radiation
Protection and Measurement.
Previously established and documented health-based constituent concentration
limits are used in the hazard assessment as a basis for proposing alternate
concentration limit values at specific sites.
(4) The assessment identifies and evaluates the risks posed by the hazardous
constituents to environmental populations. Adverse effects on aquatic and
terrestrial wildlife, plants, agricultural crops, livestock, and physical structures
should be considered. Examples of these adverse effects are: (a) contaminant-
induced changes in the biota, (b) loss or reduction of unique or critical habitats,
and (c) jeopardy to endangered or threatened species. The NRC must initiate
special consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in accordance with
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-5
50 CFR Part 17, if endangered or threatened species occur on the site or could be
impacted by site activities. NUREG–1748 . . . should be consulted for initiating
this consultation.
Similar to the human risk evaluation, the environmental risk evaluation identifies
any acute and sub-chronic effects on environmental populations caused by
exposure to the hazardous constituents. Bioaccumulation and food chain
interactions are considered when evaluating adverse effects. A comparison of the
estimated constituent concentrations to the appropriate federal or State water-
quality criteria should be part of the evaluation of potential effects on aquatic
wildlife.
When appropriate, the hazard assessment considers potential damage to physical
structures such as foundations, underground pipes, and roads. The applicant
should demonstrate that the forecasted constituent concentrations will not result in
any significant degradation or loss of function, as a result of contamination
exposure. As an example, excessive concentrations of dissolved salts could result
in accelerated corrosion of underground utility piping.
Exposure Assessment
NUREG-1620, Section 4.3.3.2: The purpose of the exposure assessment is to evaluate
the potential harm to human health and the environment from the hazards identified in the
hazard assessment. The exposure assessment takes into account site-specific
circumstances that may reduce or enhance the potential for exposure to hazardous
constituents. This assessment identifies and evaluates hazardous constituent exposure
pathways, and provides forecasts of human and environmental population responses,
based on the projected constituent concentrations, dose levels, and available information
on the radiological and chemical toxicity effects of the constituents. The assessment also
addresses the underlying assumptions, variability, and uncertainty of the projected health
and environmental effects. Exposure pathways should be identified and evaluated using
water classification and water use standards, along with existing and anticipated water
uses. Agricultural, industrial, domestic, municipal, environmental, and recreational water
uses should also be considered, as they pertain to the site and surrounding areas. The
exposure assessment must provide adequate information regarding potential effects on
ground-water resources, and the above water uses, to support NRC’s environmental
review under 10 CFR Part 51. NUREG–1748 . . . should be consulted for the details of
this review.
Proposed human exposure levels should be reasonably conservative, defensible, and
sufficiently protective to avoid a substantial present or potential hazard to people for the
forecasted duration of the contamination. A proposed alternate concentration limit that
does not exceed an excess lifetime risk of fatal cancer on the order of 10-4 is acceptable
for an average exposed individual at the point of exposure, when considering the
potential for the health risks from human exposure to known or suspected carcinogens
contained in untreated ground-water used for drinking water.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-6
The exposure assessment must identify the point of compliance, where the proposed
alternate concentration limit will be measured; and the points of exposure, where the
human health and environmental exposures could occur. The assessment identifies the
maximum permissible levels of hazardous constituents at the point of compliance that are
protective of human health and the environment at the point of exposure. This is
accomplished by evaluating human and environmental exposure to each of those
constituents evaluated in the hazard assessment, and then showing the proposed alternate
concentration limit will not result in an unacceptable exposure of human health or the
environment to those hazards. The exposure assessment should include the following:
(1) The exposure assessment evaluates the pathways the hazardous constituents
will likely follow and the concentration or dose those constituents will likely
produce at the location where humans or environmental populations could be
reasonably exposed. All likely pathways that could transport significant amounts
of hazardous constituents in the ground water and hydraulically connected surface
water should be identified and evaluated. The hazardous constituent
concentrations and projected distributions for each pathway should be best
estimates or reasonably conservative representations of the rate, extent, and
direction of the constituent transport.
The ground-water pathway evaluation provides projected contaminant
distributions, including contaminant transport, degradation, and attenuation
mechanisms between the point of compliance and the point of exposure. The
evaluation generally provides information on: (a) site hydrogeologic
characteristics, including ground-water flow direction and rates; (b) background
water quality; and (c) estimated transport rates, geochemical attenuation, and
concentrations of hazardous constituents in the ground water and hydraulically
connected surface water. Projections should be calibrated on the basis of site-
specific information. The projected attenuation rate may rely on constituent
concentration measurements at the point of compliance and the point of exposure,
taken over an adequate period of time, when there is great uncertainty in the
attenuation rate derived from laboratory measurements or literature sources.
(2) The pathway evaluation provides the spatial distribution of the various
hazardous constituents of existing contaminant plumes. This information can be
used to calibrate contaminant fate and transport models in the exposure
assessment and also identifies the components of the source term that have
already been released from the tailings. The contaminant extent characterization
includes: (a) the type and distribution of hazardous constituents in the ground
water and the source(s) of the contamination; (b) the monitoring program used to
delineate and characterize hazardous constituent distribution; and (c) supporting
documentation of the sampling, laboratory analysis, and quality assurance
programs that show the fulfillment of the site monitoring programs. Such
information is used to assess present human and environmental population
exposure to elevated concentrations of hazardous constituents, calibrate
contaminant transport models, and evaluate projected future exposures. Computer
codes may be used to evaluate the pathways for hazardous constituent transport.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-7
The acceptance criteria for ground-water fate and transport computer modeling
are contained in standard review plan Section 4.4.3.
(3) The human exposure evaluation considers two potential exposure pathways:
(a) ingestion of contaminated water and (b) ingestion of contaminated foods.
Other pathways that may impact human health, such as dermal contact and
inhalation, are also to be considered, but need not always be assessed, unless it is
determined that these exposures could result in significant hazards to human
health or the environment.
Human exposure is evaluated primarily on the basis of the extent to which people
are using, and are likely to use, contaminated water from the site. Site-specific
water uses are determined on the basis of the following considerations: (a)
ground-water quality in the site area and present water uses; (b) statutory or legal
constraints and institutional controls on water use in the site area; (c) federal,
state, or other ground-water classification criteria and guidelines; (d) applicable
water-use criteria, standards, and guidelines; and (e) availability and
characteristics of alternate water supplies.
Exposure determinations should consider existing and potential water uses.
Potential uses include those that are reasonably expected to occur (i.e., anticipated
use) and uses that are compatible with the untreated background water quality
(i.e., possible use). Past water uses may be included as existing or potential uses.
Water resource classification of existing and potential water use should include
(a) domestic and municipal drinking water use; (b) fish and wildlife propagation,
(c) special ecological communities uses: and (d) industrial, agricultural, and
recreational uses. The classification of existing and potential water uses at the
facility should be consistent with federal, state, and local water use inventories.
The cumulative effects of human exposure to hazardous constituents at the
proposed alternate concentration limits, and to other constituents present in
contaminated groundwater, will be maintained at a level adequate to protect
public health. The combined effects from both radiological and non-radiological
constituents should be considered. Guidance for cumulative impact assessment is
contained in NUREG–1748 . . . and additional guidance is found in Council on
Environmental Quality (1997).
(4) Potential responses of environmental or non-human populations to the various
hazardous constituents are evaluated if such populations can realistically be
exposed to contaminated ground water or hydraulically connected surface water.
Terrestrial and aquatic wildlife, plants, livestock, and crops are included in this
evaluation. A detailed environmental exposure evaluation should be performed in
the absence of available information that could readily be used to show there will
be no substantial environmental impacts caused by ground-water contamination
from the site. The evaluation should provide: (a) inventories of potentially
exposed environmental populations; (b) recommended tolerance or exposure
limits; (c) contaminant interactions and their cumulative effects on exposed
populations; (d) projected responses of environmental populations that result from
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-8
exposure to hazardous constituents; and (e) anticipated changes in populations,
independent of the hazardous constituent exposure. Alternatively, the evaluation
may demonstrate that environmental hazards are not anticipated, because
exposure will not occur.
The potential for adverse effects, such as (a) contamination-induced biotic
changes; (b) loss or reduction of unique or critical habitats; and (c) jeopardizing
endangered species, should also be described. Aquatic wildlife effects are
evaluated by comparing estimated constituent concentrations with federal and
state water quality criteria. Terrestrial wildlife exposure to constituents through
direct exposure and food-web interactions should be considered. The NRC must
initiate special consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in accordance
with 50 CFR Part 17, if endangered or threatened species occur on the site or
could be impacted by site activities. NUREG–1748 . . . should be consulted for
initiating this consultation.
Agricultural effects from both direct and indirect exposure pathways, crop
impacts, reduced productivity, and bioaccumulation of constituents should be
considered. Reasonably conservative estimates of constituent concentrations are
compared with federal and state water quality criteria to estimate agricultural
effects associated with constituent exposure. Additionally, crop exposures through
contaminated soil, shallow ground-water uptake, and irrigation, along with
livestock exposure through direct ingestion of contaminated water and indirect
exposure through grazing, should be assessed.
(5) Points of exposure are identified. A point of exposure is any location where
people, wildlife, or other species could reasonably be exposed to hazardous
constituents from ground water contaminated by uranium mill tailings. For
example, the point(s) of exposure may be represented by one or more domestic
wells that might withdraw contaminated ground water; or it may be represented
by springs, rivers, streams, or lakes into which contaminated ground water might
discharge. The point of exposure is used to assess the potential hazard(s) to
human health and the environment and effects on the ground-water resource.
An alternate concentration limit for a hazardous constituent is established at the
point of compliance. The point of exposure may be situated at some distance from
the point of compliance, allowing hazardous constituent concentrations to
diminish through dispersion, attenuation, or sorption within the aquifer. As a
result, an alternate concentration limit may be set at a concentration that is higher
at the point of compliance location than a limit that would be protective of human
health and environment, as long as the hazardous constituent will not result in an
unacceptable hazard to human health and the environment at the point of
exposure. In most cases, the point of exposure is located at the downgradient edge
of land that will be transferred to either the federal government or the state for
long-term institutional control.
The applicant for an alternate concentration limit should make every reasonable
effort to keep the point of exposure at the long-term care site boundary. If this
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-9
cannot be achieved, a good-faith effort must be made to acquire the land between
the license area boundary and the point of exposure, for ultimate transfer to the
long-term custodian. If the land cannot be acquired through a good-faith effort,
then institutional controls other than ownership by the long-term custodian may
be initiated. These institutional controls must be enforceable, durable, and legally
defensible; and will be applied in addition to the numerical limits of the proposed
alternate concentration limit. This approach must be reviewed as an alternative to
the specific regulatory requirements contained in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A,
Criterion 5B(6).
A distant point of exposure may be justified when human or environmental
exposure is effectively impossible. This option could be justified on the basis that
extremely rugged terrain cannot be physically accessed or the long-term care
custodian would ensure that ground water from the contaminated aquifers
between the disposal site and the point of exposure would not be used. In some
rare instances, a distant point of exposure could be established without invoking
land ownership by a long-term custodian. Under these circumstances, the
previously described institutional controls should be invoked. Human and
environmental exposures are considered effectively impossible when the ground
water is inaccessible or unsuitable for use. Land ownership or long-term custody
will not be an issue for establishing a distant point of exposure if human and
environmental exposures are effectively impossible.
When a distant point of exposure is involved, the applicant must coordinate the
use of this option with the NRC. The NRC and the applicant must verify whether
the state or the federal government will be the long-term site custodian, after the
license is terminated. The applicant must then secure a commitment from that
party to take custody of the site. The applicant or the NRC must then secure
written assurance that the appropriate federal or state agency will accept the
transfer of the specific property, including land in excess of that needed for
tailings disposal. Alternate concentration limits may not be established at sites
involving a distant point of exposure until the licensee agrees to transfer the title
to the land, and the appropriate federal or state government commits to take such
land, including the land between the point of compliance and point of exposure
that is in excess of the land used for disposal of byproduct material.
If the licensee chooses to keep the mill property under a specific license and apply
for an alternate concentration limit as part of a compliance monitoring program,
the licensee must still coordinate the use of a distant point of exposure with the
NRC as described above.
(6) The likelihood of human and environmental exposure is determined. The
probability of human and environmental exposure is often difficult to establish
quantitatively. Consequently, defensible qualitative estimates of the exposure
likelihood are often necessary. These can be characterized as either:
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-10
(a) Reasonably likely—when exposure has or could have occurred in the
past, or available information indicates that exposure to contamination
may reasonably occur during the contamination period.
(b) Reasonably unlikely—when exposure could have occurred in the past,
but will probably not occur in the future, either because initial incentives
for water use have been removed, or because available information
indicates that no incentives for water use are currently identifiable, based
on foreseeable technological developments.
(7) Exposure impacts are adequately evaluated through time. It is acceptable to
project impacts at the point of exposure during a 1,000-year time frame. This is
consistent with the design standard of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion
6(1).
Accidents
Draft Regulatory Guide (DG)-3024, Section 6: Establish a spectrum of potential mill
accidents ranging from trivial to serious by classes of occurrence and appropriately
evaluate each class of accidents. It should discuss measures that the applicant has
implemented to prevent accidents and demonstrate the adequacy of the methods.
Emergency plans and training for coping with accidents should also be described. For
example, the applicant should discuss potential accidental fires in terms of occurrence,
prevention, detection and suppression mechanisms (both manual and automatic), and
emergency plans for coping with them. The applicant should also discuss the adequacy of
the emergency response program.
Mill Accidents Involving Radioactivity
RG 3.8, Section 7.1: Provide accident analyses for a spectrum of accidents that might
occur ranging in severity from trivial (essentially no release of radioactivity to the
environment) to very large releases. Each class within the spectrum should be
characterized by an occurrence rate or probability and its potential consequences, if any.
Examples of accidents resulting in large releases would be a tornado striking the mill or
the failure of a waste retention system resulting from an act of nature or improper
operation. Examples of accidents resulting in small releases would be a fire or explosion
in a solvent extraction circuit or failure of the air cleaning system serving the yellowcake
area during operation. An example of a trivial accident would be the malfunction of mill
process equipment or the rupture of a vessel containing mill solutions.
Other Accidents
RG 3.8, Section 7.3: In addition to accidents that can release radioactivity to the
environs, there may be accidents that, although radioactive materials are not involved, do
have consequences that affect the environment. Such accidents as chemical explosions or
fires, steam boiler failures, and leakage or rupture of vessels containing toxic materials
can have significant environmental impacts. These possible accidents and associated
effects should be identified and evaluated.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-11
Summary of Annual Radiation Doses
RG 3.8, Section 5.2.5: The applicant should provide estimates of the maximum annual
doses (millirems) that could be received via all pathways by an individual at the site
boundary and at the nearest residence.
The applicant should also present a table that summarizes the estimated radiation dose to the
regional population (within 80-km) from mill and mine related sources using values
calculated in previous sections. The tabulation should include (a) the total annual doses
(man-rems) to the population . . . from all water-related pathways and (b) the total annual
doses (man-rems) to the population attributable to airborne effluents.
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B UAC R313-24-3-01B/01:
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS - IMPACT ON WATERWAYS AND GROUNDWATER
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 the following:
(b) An assessment of any impact on waterways and groundwater resulting from the
activities conducted pursuant to the license or amendment;
Relevant NRC Guidance
RG 3.8 , Section 2.7.1: Describe the hydrology of the region that affects the local
ground-water aquifers, formations, sources. Indicate the recharge potential of the
immediate plant area, including vertical and horizontal permeabilities of the natural and
modified terrain, as well as that of tailing disposal areas, and indicate gradients and
seasonal variations in ground-water levels beneath the site.
Sufficient site-specific data should be furnished for the evaluation of the effects of
construction and operation of the facility on established ground-water tables and usage,
this being an especially important for consideration of dewatering operations in
associated mines.
Descriptions of the major aquifers in the area should include piezometric contour maps,
hydraulic gradients, permeabilities for representative geologic features, total and effective
porosities, bulk density estimates, storage coefficients, dispersion and distribution
(sorption) coefficients, descriptions of pertinent geologic formations and soil types,
including formation depth throughout the site and to the nearest downgradient well or
water body, chemical and radiological properties, and time histories of ground-water
fluctuations.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-12
The applicant should provide data concerning any drawdown of ground water that may
be caused by withdrawals from neighboring major industrial, agricultural, or municipal
wells.
DG-3024, , Section 2.3.1: Describe regional and local ground water aquifers,
formations, sources, and sinks; describe the recharge potential of the immediate plant
area, including vertical and horizontal permeabilities of the natural and modified terrain,
as well as that of tailings areas; describe the present and projected regional use and
tabulate existing private users within the area influenced by the proposed activities and
all local and regional public users (e.g., amounts, water levels, locations, and drawdown);
and describe gradients and seasonal variations in ground water levels beneath the site.
Surface Water
RG 3.8, Section 6.1.1: If a body of surface water may be affected by the proposed
activities, the applicant should describe the programs by which the background condition
of the water and the related ecology were determined. If a natural water body has already
been subjected to environmental stress from pollutant sources, the nature of this stress
and its consequences should be evaluated. The applicant should estimate the potential
quality of the affected water body.
Physical and Chemical Parameters (Ground Water)
RG 3.8, Section 6.1.2.1: The properties and configuration of the local aquifer will have
been defined in sufficient detail . . . to permit a reasonable projection of effects of
proposed activities on the ground water. Methods for obtaining information on ground-
water levels and ground-water quality should be described.
Models (Ground Water)
RG 3.8, Section 6.1.2.2: Models may be used to predict such effects as changes in
ground-water levels, dispersion of contaminants, and eventual transport through aquifers
to surface water bodies and downgradient wells. The models should be described and
supporting evidence for their reliability and validity presented.
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B UAC R313-24-3-01C/01:
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS – ALTERNATIVES
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 the following:
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-13
(c) Consideration of alternatives, including alternative sites and engineering methods, to the
activities to be conducted pursuant to the license or amendment; and
Relevant NRC Guidance
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
RG 3.8, Section 10: . . . the applicant's choice of a particular mill at a particular site and the
location of project structures on the site should be supported through a comparative
evaluation of available alternatives. To the extent possible, the applicant should discuss all
parameters for the available alternatives. The NRC will consider all available alternatives
that may reduce or avoid adverse environmental, social, and economic effects expected to
result from construction and operation of the proposed milling and mining project. The NRC
will not specify in advance which alternatives should be selected by the applicant for
consideration. The applicant should make this selection and also make clear the basis and
rationale for the choices in regard to number, availability, suitability, and factors limiting the
range of alternatives that might avoid some or all of the environmental effects previously
identified. Particular attention should be placed on the relationship between tailings
management alternatives and mill site and process alternatives.
In the discussion of tailings management alternatives, consideration should be given to the
following siting, design, and operation performance objectives developed by the staff in
addition to the [following] technical criteria . . . .:
1. Locate the tailings isolation area remote from people to reduce population
exposures to the maximum extent reasonably achievable.
2. Locate the tailings isolation area so that disruption and dispersion by natural
forces is eliminated or reduced to the maximum extent reasonably achievable.
3. Design the isolation area so that seepage of toxic materials into the ground-water
system would be eliminated or reduced to the maximum extent reasonably
achievable.
4. Eliminate the blowing of tailings to unrestricted areas during normal operating
conditions and prior to final reclamation.
Benefit – Cost Analysis
RG 3.8, Section 11: The applicant's benefit-cost statement should be presented. The
presentation should be made in the form of a narrative with accompanying tables and charts.
It should make clear what the applicant considers to be the important benefits and costs of
the proposed facility and why, in the judgment of the applicant, the former outweigh the
latter.
The applicant should develop criteria for assessing and comparing benefits and costs where
these are expressed in nonmonetary or qualitative terms. The rationales for the selection
among mill-site alternatives, as well as among subsystem alternatives, should be presented.
In any case, the applicant should carefully describe any aggregation of effects and discuss in
detail the tradeoffs that were made in order to justify the proposed operation. If any of the
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-14
benefits or costs are deleted from the applicant's analysis, the rationale for doing so should
be explained. The applicant should key all the terms used in the benefit-cost analysis to the
relevant sections of the environmental report.
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B UAC R313-24-3-01D/01:
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 the following:
(d) Consideration of the long-term impacts including decommissioning,
decontamination, and reclamation impacts, associated with activities to be conducted
pursuant to the license or amendment.
Relevant NRC Guidance
Mill Decommissioning
DG-3024, Section 8.1: Provide the proposed plan for removing and disposing of
structures, tanks, and equipment used in conjunction with the uranium milling operations,
including the plan for managing all hazardous and radioactive materials. In the
decommissioning plan, consider approaches for identifying radiological hazards before
initiating dismantlement of structures and equipment and for detection and cleanup of
removable contamination from such structures and equipment in order to minimize
occupational radiation exposure. Describe appropriate survey methods for determining
the extent of equipment contamination before initiating decontamination work. Focus, in
particular, on those parts of the mill process system that are likely to have accumulated
contamination over long time periods (e.g., pipes, ventilation, equipment, effluent control
systems, and facilities and equipment used in or near the yellowcake dryer area).
Describe any plans for the decontamination of equipment for release for unrestricted use.
Site and Tailings Reclamation
DG-3024, Section 8.2: Provide the proposed plan for reclamation of the site and tailings
impoundment that demonstrates compliance with the applicable requirements of
Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40. In the plan, describe the overall reclamation design and
construction considerations of the tailings impoundment. Assess the geotechnical stability
aspects of the tailings impoundment, including slope stability and liquefaction. In
addition, address the hydrologic characteristics of the site, including flooding potential,
and erosion protection features of the tailings impoundment. Include strategies for the
protection of water resources, including plans to prevent the spread of both hazardous and
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-15
radioactive contaminants from the processing site and tailings storage area into ground
water or surface water and to implement corrective action in the event these bodies
become contaminated during operations. Address the radiation protection design of the
tailings disposal impoundment cover for radon and gamma attenuation and the potential
for settlement of the tailings impoundment and resulting cracking of the radon barrier.
Include measures for cleanup of windblown tailings and other soils contaminated from
mill operations and for sampling and surveys to document that soils have been cleaned to
acceptable levels. Address the means for disposing of any ore remaining on site following
the cessation of mill operations. (See NUREG-1620, “Standard Review Plan for the
Review of a Reclamation Plan for Mill Tailings Sites Under Title II of the Uranium Mill
Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978,” issued June 2003 (Ref. 16), for additional
detailed information on the scope and content of a reclamation plan.)
Decommissioning and Reclamation
RG 3.8, Section 9: The applicant should describe in depth its plans for mill
decommissioning and site reclamation.
Detailed discussions should be provided for the following:
1. Plans for reclaiming and restoring lands disturbed by mining and milling activities.
These plans should provide sufficient details for the staff to assess the suitability of these
plans when compared to other alternatives (e.g., horizontal-vertical slope, type of cover,
sources and thicknesses of cover materials, revegetation species, and schedule of events
from shutdown through final reclamation).
2. A technical and financial feasibility assessment on methods and costs of mill
decommissioning and site reclamation, including tailings area.
3. Financial arrangements to be made (such as bonding arrangements) to ensure that
adequate funds will be available for mill decommissioning, site reclamation, and
restoration when operations are concluded.
Decommissioning Plan for Land and Structures
NUREG-1620, Section 5.2.3: The decommissioning plan will be acceptable if it meets
the following criteria:
(1) The plan contains procedures to identify and place within the disposal cell, all soils on
and adjacent to the processing site that are in excess of the standards in 10 CFR Part 40,
Appendix A, Criterion 6(6), due to site activities. The plan is substantiated by the
radiological characterization data and site history.
(2) Appropriate soil background values (different geological areas may need separate
background values) for Ra-226, and for U-nat, Th-230, and/or Th-232, as appropriate,
have been proposed with supporting data.
(3) If elevated levels of uranium or thorium are expected to remain in the soil after the
Ra-226 criteria have been met, the licensee has used the radium benchmark dose
approach in Appendix H for developing decommissioning criteria for these radionuclides.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-16
(4) To ensure consistency of measurement data, instrumentation and procedures used for
soil background analyses and the radium-gamma correlation are the same or very similar
to those proposed to provide verification data. The instrumentation has the appropriate
sensitivity, and procedures are adequate to provide reliable data.
(5) A detailed quality assurance and quality control plan for all aspects of
decommissioning is provided. In addition to the basis for accepting or rejecting data, a
procedure for sampling additional grids when a verification Ra-226 sample fails to meet
the standard is provided.
(6) Final verification (status survey) procedures are adequate to demonstrate compliance
with the soil and structure cleanup standards. Survey instruments are specified and will
be properly calibrated and tested. The proposed verification soil sampling density takes
into consideration detection limits of sample analyses, the extent of expected
contamination (unaffected area could have fewer measurements than affected areas), and
limits to the gamma survey for the potentially contaminated area to be sampled. The
gamma guideline value to be used for verification has been appropriately chosen. Also,
there is a commitment to provide the verification soil radium-gamma correlation and the
number of verification grids that had additional removal because of excessive Ra-226
values, to confirm that the gamma guideline value was adequate. The plan provides for
adequate data collection beyond the excavation boundary (buffer zone). For structures to
remain onsite, adequate plans/procedures to demonstrate compliance with the limits for
the surface activity dose in Appendix H of this standard review plan have been
developed.
(7) The plan indicates the location of records important to decommissioning procedures
for protection of health and safety and demonstrates that decommissioning will be
completed as soon as practicable, as required by 10 CFR 40.42 and Appendix A,
Criterion 6A.
(8) The decommissioning cost estimate is itemized in sufficient detail and a basis
(source) for each cost is provided. The total cost is reasonable for the area of the site and
the expected decommissioning activities.
(9) The plan adequately describes the control of non-radiological hazards associated with
the wastes as required by 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(7).
(10) As required by Appendix A, Criteria 9 and 10, the licensee must maintain a financial
surety, within the specific license, for the surface reclamation and decommissioning, with
the surety sufficient to recover the anticipated cost and time frame for achieving
compliance, and include the long-term surveillance. Guidance on establishing financial
surety is presented in NRC (1988, 1997). Appendix C to this standard review plan
provides an outline of the cost elements appropriate for establishing surety amounts for
conventional uranium mills. Any staff assessment of surety amounts is reasonably
consistent with the applicant’s assessment
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-17
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40.26(C)(2)-02/01: GENERAL
LICENSE
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40.26(c)(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 corrected 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 record for three years after each inspection is documented.
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40.31(H)-03/01: APPLICATION
FOR SPECIFIC LICENSES
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40.31(h): An application for a
license to receive, possess, and use source material for uranium or thorium milling or byproduct
material, as defined in 10CFR40, at sites formerly associated with such milling shall contain
proposed written specifications relating to milling operations and the disposition of the
byproduct material to achieve the requirements and objectives set forth in appendix A of
10CFR40. Each application must clearly demonstrate how the requirements and objectives set
forth in appendix A of 10CFR40 have been addressed. Failure to clearly demonstrate how the
requirements and objectives in appendix A have been addressed shall be grounds for refusing to
accept an application.
Relevant NRC Guidance
Corporate Organization and Administrative Procedures
DG-3024, Section 5.1: Provide a detailed description of the proposed organization,
including authority and responsibility of each level of management and/or supervision in
regard to development, review, approval, implementation, and adherence to operating
procedures, radiation safety programs, environmental and ground water monitoring
programs, quality assurance programs, routine and nonroutine maintenance activities, and
changes in any of the above.
Management Control Program
DG-3024, Section 5.2: Describe the proposed management control program and
administrative procedures to ensure that all activities will be conducted in accordance with
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-18
written operating procedures that site radiation safety staff review and approve at specified
frequencies. This program should provide a method for ensuring that any nonroutine work
or maintenance activity that is not covered by an effective operating procedure is conducted
in accordance with a special work permit, reviewed and approved by the radiation safety
staff.
Management Audit and Inspection Program
DG-3024, Section 5.3: Describe the proposed management audit and internal inspection
program, including types and scopes of reviews and inspections, their frequencies, and
related action levels and corrective action measures that may be needed. Identify, by
management position, the individual responsible for each phase of the audit and inspection
program.
Qualifications
DG-3024, Section 5.4: Describe the minimum qualifications and experience required for
personnel in the applicant’s proposed organization who will be assigned the responsibility
for developing, conducting, and administering the radiation safety program for the mill. The
qualifications of the individuals proposed for these positions should be provided in an
appendix. (In cases where specific individual appointments may not have been made when
an application is filed, minimum specifications will suffice.)
Training
DG-3024, Section 5.5: Describe the proposed employee radiological protection training
program, including the content of the initial training or indoctrination, testing, on-the-job
training, and the extent and frequency of retraining. In conformance with 10 CFR 19.12,
“Instruction to Workers” (Ref. 11), provide in an appendix a copy of the proposed written
radiological safety instructions that will be given to employees. These instructions should
include provisions for personal hygiene (including washing), surveying for contamination
before eating or leaving the mill, wearing personnel monitoring devices and respirators,
applying good housekeeping requirements, cleaning up dust and spills within the mill, and
initiating emergency action in the event of accidents.
Security
DG-3024, Section 5.6: Describe the measures for preventing unauthorized entry into the
controlled area. (See 10 CFR 20.1901, “Caution Signs,” through 10 CFR 20.1905,
“Exemptions to Labeling Requirements.”)
Quality Assurance
DG-3024, Section 7: Describe the quality assurance program for all phases of the milling
project, including design, construction, startup, operation, and the radiation safety
program (including the in-plant, effluent, and environmental monitoring programs). It
should also discuss the corrective action measures established to ensure that conditions
adverse to quality are identified and corrected and that the cause of significant conditions
adverse to quality is determined and corrective action taken to preclude repetition. (See
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-19
Regulatory Guide 4.15, “Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs
(Inception Through Normal Operations to License Termination) Effluent Streams and the
Environment” (Ref. 15), for guidance on a method the NRC staff considers acceptable for
use in designing and implementing programs to ensure the quality of measurement results
for radioactive materials in the effluents from, and the environment outside of, facilities
that process, use, or store radioactive materials during all phases of the facility’s life
cycle.).
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40.61-06/01: RECORDS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following 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.
(3) 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
recordkeeping requirement.
(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
first-in-first-out), to make the records that are required by 10CFR40 account for 100 percent of
the material received.:
(b) The licensee shall retain each record that is required by the regulations in 10CFR40 or by
license condition for 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 Executive Secretary terminates the license that authorizes the activity that
is subject to the recordkeeping requirement.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-20
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40.65(A)(1)-07/01: EFFLUENT
MONITORING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40.65(a)(1): Each licensee
authorized to possess and use source material in uranium milling … shall . . . within 60 days after
January 1 and July 1 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 unrestricted
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.
Relevant NRC Guidance
Mill Effluent Monitoring (Proposed Operational Monitoring Program)
RG 3.8, Section 6.2.1.1: Describe the proposed effluent monitoring program for liquid
and airborne effluents. Discuss the sensitivity limits for detecting radioactivity
corresponding to routinely expected release rates. List the effluent streams, if any, that
will not be monitored and provide a brief rationale for the absence of monitoring. Also,
provide criteria for setting threshold levels for corrective action and describe the actions
to be taken if these levels are exceeded.
Environmental Radiological Monitoring (Proposed Operational Monitoring Program)
RG 3.8, Section 6.2.1.2: The operational monitoring program should be described in
detail, with specific attention given to the organisms and other types of samples to be
collected, sampling locations and frequency, the analyses to be performed on each
sample, the analytical sensitivity (detection threshold) for each analysis, and the criteria
for investigating increases of concentration of material detected in the environs.
Meteorological Monitoring (Proposed Operational Monitoring Program)
RG 3.8, Section 6.2.3: The applicant's program for monitoring meteorological
phenomena should be described.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-21
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40.INTRODUCTION-08/01:
CAPACITY OF TAILINGS OR WASTE SYSTEMS OVER THE LIFETIME OF MILL
OPERATIONS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40. Appendix A, Introduction:
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
stockpiled), the amenability of the disposal system to accommodate increased capacities without
degradation in long-term stability and other performance factors must be evaluated .
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40 APPENDIX A,
INTRODUCTION-09/01: ALTERNATIVE REQUIREMENTS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40. Appendix A, Introduction: …
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 geology,
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.
Relevant NRC Guidance:
Proposed Alternate Concentration Limit
NUREG-1620, Section 4.3.3.3: The applicant’s assessment of ground-water corrective
action alternatives should be reviewed in conjunction with the hazard assessment and the
exposure assessment. Past, current, and proposed practicable corrective actions are
identified and evaluated against the costs and benefits associated with implementing each
corrective action alternative. The corrective action assessment should demonstrate that
the proposed alternate concentration limit is as low as is reasonably achievable,
considering practicable corrective actions, as required by 10 CFR Part 40 Appendix A,
Criterion 5B(6). A principal way of demonstrating this is by estimating and comparing
the benefits imparted by a corrective action measure against the cost of implementing that
measure.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-22
For some sites, a corrective action assessment may have already been completed, as part
of a ground-water corrective action program under Criterion 5D of Appendix A to 10
CFR Part 40, as described in standard review plan Section 4.4.3. A ground-water
corrective action assessment typically (a) identifies several practicable corrective action
alternatives; (b) assesses the technical feasibility, costs, and benefits of each alternative;
and (c) selects an appropriate corrective action for achieving compliance with the ground-
water protection standards established at the site. The corrective action assessment should
include the following:
(1) A complete range of realistic and reasonable corrective action alternatives for
achieving compliance with the ground-water standards currently in the license and
the proposed alternate concentration limit is described and evaluated. The
identified alternatives should be comprehensive, including all engineering-
feasible alternatives, both passive and active, or any appropriate sequential
combination of alternatives. The analyzed corrective action alternative should not
simply be a compendium of the most elaborate and expensive alternatives. The
description of each alternative should be conceptual in nature, but contain
sufficient detail so the reviewer can independently verify the reasonableness of
each corrective action measure. Although conceptual, the alternate descriptions
should also contain sufficient detail for completing a coarse cost estimate of each
alternative for the cost and benefit analysis.
For past and current corrective actions, site-specific operational and monitoring
data should be included to show the effectiveness of those measures. The
evaluation may include information from literature sources or documented
experience from other sites for those corrective actions that have not been
implemented at the site but appear to be practicable. The evaluation should also
include projections of the hazardous constituent concentration that each corrective
action would likely produce at specific times at the point of compliance and the
point of exposure. It is important that the reviewer assure that the range of
reasonable corrective actions listed in the application is complete. The suitability
of a corrective action should be determined strictly on the technical and
engineering information needed to design and implement a particular measure.
The economic constraints for implementing a particular measure should not be
used to eliminate a corrective action method from the evaluation.
(2) The direct benefits of implementing the corrective actions have been
determined by estimating the current and projected resource value of the pre-
contaminated ground water. Estimates of pre-contaminated ground-water value
should be based on water rights, availability of alternate water supplies, and
forecasted water use demands. The value of a contaminated water resource is
generally equal to the cost of a domestic or municipal drinking water supply or
the cost of water supplied from an alternate source to replace the contaminated
resource. The absence of available alternate water supplies increases the relative
value of a potentially contaminated water resource. The indirect benefits are
determined by assessing the avoidance of adverse health effects from exposure to
contaminated water, the prevention of land value depreciation, and any benefits
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-23
accrued from performing the corrective action, including timeliness of
remediation. The reviewer should verify the water yields; costs for developing
alternate water supply sources; and legal, statutory, or other administrative
constraints on the use and development of the water resources.
(3) The costs associated with performing a corrective action alternative to achieve
the target concentrations include (a) the capital costs for designing, and
constructing the alternative; (b) operation and maintenance costs; (c) costs
associated with demonstrating compliance with the standards; and (d)
decommissioning costs after the corrective action is completed.
(4) The “as low as is reasonably achievable” analysis is performed on target
concentration levels that are at or below the limit determined to be protective of
human health and the environment. At least three target concentration levels that
can reasonably be attained by the practicable corrective actions should be
evaluated. The goals should be (a) meaningfully different, (b) reasonably
attainable by practicable corrective action, and (c) at or below the levels identified
in the hazard assessment.
The “as low as is reasonably achievable” analysis typically considers (a) the direct
and indirect benefits of implementing each corrective action to achieve the target
concentration levels; (b) the costs of performing the corrective action to achieve
the target concentrations; and (c) a determination whether any of the evaluated
corrective action alternatives will reduce contaminant levels below the proposed
alternate concentration limit, considering the benefits and costs of implementing
the alternative.
The applicant should also provide a comparison among the costs associated with
performing the various corrective action alternatives to achieve the target concentrations,
the value of the pre-contaminated ground-water resource, and the benefits of achieving
each target concentration. A proposed alternate concentration limit is considered as low
as is reasonably achievable if the comparison of the costs to achieve the target
concentrations lower than the alternate concentration limit are far in excess of the value
of the resource and the benefits associated with performing the corrective action
alternative. If the value and benefits clearly exceed the costs or the comparison is nearly
equal, the proposed alternate concentration limit should be revised to the lower target
concentration providing the greatest value and benefit compared to the cost.
The cost and benefit analysis should not be limited to a simple financial accounting of the
costs for each corrective action alternative. Costs and benefits should also be discussed
for qualitative subjects, such as environmental degradation or enhancement. The cost and
benefit analysis is not simply a mathematical formula from which to justify economic
parameters. Other qualitative factors should be discussed and weighed in the decision.
The cost and benefits analysis provides input to determine the relative merits of various
corrective action alternatives; however, the proposed alternate concentration limit must
ultimately assure protection of public health and the environment.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-24
The as low as is reasonably achievable analysis for non-radiological constituents should
be similar to the as low as is reasonably achievable analysis for radiological constituents
except a “dollar per person-rem avoided” value would not be calculated. Additionally,
once nonradiological constituent are below regulatory maximum concentration levels, the
licensee ha no further obligation to reduce the constituent concentrations.
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40 APPENDIX A, CRITERION 1-
10/01: PERMANENT ISOLATION WITHOUT ONGOING MAINTENANCE
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40 Appendix A, Criterion 1: 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 natural forces, and to
do so without ongoing maintenance. For practical reasons, specific 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 among 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 long-term impacts, as opposed to consideration only of short-term
convenience or benefits, such as minimization of transportation or land acquisition costs. While
isolation of tailings will be a function of both site and engineering design, overriding
consideration must be given to siting features given the long-term 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.
Relevant NRC Guidance: Refer also to Interrogatory UAC R313-24-3-01D/01 above.
Slope Stability
NUREG-1620, Section 2.2.3: The analysis of slope stability will be acceptable if it meets
the following criteria:
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-25
(1) Slope characteristics are properly evaluated.
(a) Cross sections and profiles of natural and cut slopes whose instability would directly
or indirectly affect the control of radioactive materials are presented in sufficient number
and detail to enable the reviewer to select the cross sections for detailed stability
evaluation.
(b) Slope steepness is a minimum of five horizontal units (5h) to one vertical unit (1v) or
less. The use of slopes steeper than 5h:1v is considered an alternative to the requirements
in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 4(c). When slopes steeper than 5h:1v are
proposed, a technical justification should be offered as to why a 5h:1v or flatter slope
would be impractical and compensating factors and conditions are incorporated in the
slope design for assuring long-term stability.
(c) Locations selected for slope stability analysis are determined considering the location
of maximum slope angle, slope height, weak foundation, piezometric level(s), the extent
of rock mass fracturing (for an excavated slope in rock), and the potential for local
erosion.
(2) An appropriate design static analysis is presented.
(a) The analysis includes calculations with appropriate assumptions and methods of analysis
(NRC, 1977). The effect of the assumptions and limitations of the methods used is discussed
and accounted for in the analysis. Acceptable methods for slope stability analysis include
various limit equilibrium analysis or numerical modeling methods.
(b) The uncertainties and variability in the shape of the slope, the boundaries and parameters
of the several types of soils and rocks within and beneath the slope, the material properties
of soil and rock within and beneath the slope, the forces acting on the slope, and the pore
pressures acting within and beneath the slope are considered.
(c) Appropriate failure modes during and after construction and the failure surface
corresponding to the lowest factor of safety are determined. The analysis takes into account
the failure surfaces within the slopes, including through the foundation, if any.
(d) Adverse conditions such as high water levels from severe rain and the probable
maximum flood are evaluated.
(e) The effects of toe erosion, incision at the base of the slope, and other deleterious effects
of surface runoff are assessed.
(f) The resulting safety factors for slopes analyzed are comparable to the minimum
acceptable values of safety factors for slope stability analysis given in NRC Regulatory
Guide 3.11 . . . .
(3) Appropriate analyses considering the effect of seismic ground motions on slope stability
are presented.
(a) Evaluation of overall seismic stability, using pseudostatic analysis or dynamic analysis,
as appropriate (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1977; NRC, 1977). Alternatively, a dynamic
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-26
analysis following Newmark (1965) can be carried out to establish that the permanent
deformation of the disposal cell from the design seismic event will not be detrimental to the
disposal cell. The reviewer should verify that the yield acceleration or pseudostatic
horizontal yield coefficient necessary to reduce the factor of safety against slippage of a
potential sliding mass to 1.0 in a “Newmark-type” analysis has been adequately estimated
(Seed and Bonaparte, 1992).
(b) An appropriate analytical method has been used. A number of different methods of
analysis are available (e.g., slip circle method, method of slices, and wedge analysis) with
several variants of each (Lambe and Whitman, 1979; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1970b;
NRC, 1977; Bromhead, 1992). Limit-equilibrium analysis methods do not provide
information regarding the variation of strain within the slope and along the slip surface.
Consequently, there is no assurance that the peak strength values used in the analysis can be
mobilized simultaneously along the entire slip surface unless the material shows ductile
behavior (Duncan, 1992). Residual strength values should be evaluated if mobilized shear
strength at some points is less than the peak strength. The reviewer should ensure that
appropriate conservatism has been incorporated in the analysis using the limit equilibrium
methods. The limit equilibrium analysis methodologies may be replaced by other
techniques, such as finite element or finite difference methods. If any important interaction
effects cannot be included in an analysis, the reviewer must determine that such effects have
been treated in an approximate but conservative fashion. The engineering judgment of the
reviewer should be used in assessing the adequacy of the resulting safety factors (NRC,
1983a,b).
(c) For dynamic loads, the dynamic analysis includes calculations with appropriate
assumptions and methods (NRC, 1977; Seed, 1967; Lowe, 1967; Department of the Navy,
1982a,b,c; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1970a,b, 1971, 1972; Bureau of Reclamation,
1968). The effect of the assumptions and limitations of the methods used is discussed and
accounted for in the analysis.
(d) For dynamic loads, a pseudostatic analysis is acceptable in lieu of dynamic analysis if
the strength parameters used in the analysis are conservative, the materials are not subject to
significant loss of strength and development of high pore pressures under dynamic loads, the
design seismic coefficient is 0.20 or less, and the resulting minimum factor of safety
suggests an adequate margin, as provided in NRC Regulatory Guide 3.11 (NRC, 1977).
(e) For pseudostatic analysis of slopes subjected to earthquake loads, an assumption is made
that the earthquake imparts an additional horizontal force acting in the direction of the
potential failure (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1970b, 1977; Goodman, 1989). The
critical failure surface obtained in the static analysis is used in this analysis with the added
driving force. Minimum acceptable values for safety factors of slope stability analysis are
given in Regulatory Guide 3.11 (NRC, 1977).
(f) The assessment of the dynamic stability considers an appropriate design level seismic
event and/or strong ground motion acceleration, consistent with that identified in Chapter 1
of this review plan. Influence of local site conditions on the ground motions associated with
the design level event is evaluated. The design seismic coefficient to be used in the
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-27
pseudostatic analysis is either 67 percent of the peak ground acceleration at the foundation
level of the tailings piles for the site or 0.1g, whichever is greater.
(g) If the design seismic coefficient is greater than 0.20g, then the dynamic stability
investigation (Newmark, 1965) should be augmented by other appropriate methods (i.e.,
finite element method), depending on specific site conditions.
(h) In assessing the effects of seismic loads on slope stability, the effect of dynamic stresses
of the design earthquake on soil strength parameters is accounted for. As in a static analysis,
the parameters such as geometry, soil strength, and hydrodynamic and pore pressure forces
are varied in the analysis to show that there is an adequate margin of safety.
(i) Seismically induced displacement is calculated and documented. There is no universally
accepted magnitude of seismically induced displacement for determining acceptable
performance of the disposal cell (Seed and Bonaparte, 1992; Goodman and Seed, 1966).
Surveys of five major geotechnical consulting firms by Seed and Bonaparte (1992) indicate
that the acceptable displacement is from 15 to 30 cm [6 to 12 in.] for tailings piles. The
reviewer should ensure that this criterion is also augmented by provisions for periodic
maintenance of the slope(s).
(j) Where there is potential for liquefaction, changes in pore pressure from cyclic loading are
considered in the analysis to assess the effect of pore pressure increase on the stress-strain
characteristics of the soil and the post-earthquake stability of the slopes. Liquefaction
potential is reviewed using Section 2.4 of this review plan. Evaluations of dynamic
properties and shear strengths for the tailings, underlying foundation material, radon barrier
cover, and base liner system are based on representative materials properties obtained
through appropriate field and laboratory tests (NRC, 1978, 1979).
(k) The applicant has demonstrated that impoundments will not be located near a capable
fault on which a maximum credible earthquake larger than that which the impoundment
could reasonably be expected to withstand might occur.
(4) Provision is made to establish a vegetative cover, or other erosion prevention, to include
the following considerations:
(a) The vegetative cover and its primary functions are described in detail. This determination
should be made with respect to any effect the vegetative cover may have on reducing slope
erosion and should be coordinated with the reviewer of standard review plan Chapter 3. If
strength enhancement from the vegetative cover is taken into account, the methodology
should be appropriate (Wu, 1984).
(b) In arid and semi-arid regions, where a vegetative cover is deemed not self-sustaining, a
rock cover is employed on slopes of the mill tailings. If credit is taken for strength
enhancement from rock cover, the reviewer should confirm that appropriate methodology
has been presented. The design of a rock cover, where a self-sustaining vegetative cover is
not practical, is based on standard engineering practice. Standard review plan Chapter 3
discusses this item in detail.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-28
(5) Any dams meet the requirements of the dam safety program if the application
demonstrates the following:
(a) The dam is correctly categorized as a low hazard potential or a high hazard potential
structure using the definition of the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency.(b) If the
dam is ranked as a high hazard potential, an acceptable emergency action plan consistent
with the Federal Emergency Management Agency guide (U.S. Federal Emergency
Management Agency, 1998) has been developed.
(6) The use of steeper slopes as an alternative to the requirements in 10 CFR, Part 40,
Appendix A, will be found acceptable if the following are met:
(a) An equivalent level of stabilization and containment and protection of public health,
safety, and the environment is achieved.
(b) A site-specific need for the alternate slopes is demonstrated.
Settlement
NUREG-1620, Section 2.3.3: The analysis of tailings settlement will be acceptable if it
meets the following criteria:
(1) Computation of immediate settlement follows the procedure recommended in NAVFAC
DM–7.1 (Department of the Navy, 1982). If a different procedure is used, the basis for the
procedure is adequately explained. The procedure recommended in NAVFAC DM–7.1
(Department of the Navy, 1982) for calculation of immediate settlement is adequate if
applied incrementally to account for different stages of tailings emplacement. If this method
is used, the reviewer should verify that the computation of incremental tailings loading and
the width of the loaded area, as well as the determination of the undrained modulus and
Poisson’s ratio, have been computed and documented. Settlement of tailings arises from
compression of soil layers within the disposal cell and in the underlying materials. Because
compression of sands occurs rapidly, compression of sand layers in the disposal cell and
foundations must be considered in the assessment of immediate settlement. However, the
contribution of immediate settlement to consolidation settlement cannot be ignored. Clay
layers and slime undergo instantaneous elastic compression controlled by their undrained
stiffness as well as long-term inelastic compression controlled by the processes of
consolidation and creep (NRC, 1983a).
(2) Each of the following is appropriately considered in calculating stress increments for
assessment of consolidation settlement:
(a) Decrease in overburden pressure from excavation
(b) Increase in overburden pressure from tailings emplacement\
(c) Excess pore-pressure generated within the disposal cell
(d) Changes in ground-water levels from dewatering of the tailings
(e) Any change in ground-water levels from the reclamation action
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-29
(3) Material properties and thicknesses of compressible soil layers used in stress change and
volume change calculations for assessment of consolidation settlement are representative of
in situ conditions at the site.
(4) Material properties and thicknesses of embankment zones used in stress change and
volume change calculations are consistent with as-built conditions of the disposal cell.
(5) Values of pore pressure within and beneath the disposal cell used in settlement analyses
are consistent with initial and post-construction hydrologic conditions at the site.
(6) Methods used for settlement analyses are appropriate for the disposal cell and soil
conditions at the site. Contributions to settlement by drainage of mill tailings and by
consolidation/compression of slimes and sands are considered. Both instantaneous and time-
dependent components of total and differential settlements are appropriately considered in
the analyses (NRC, 1983a,b,c). The procedure recommended in NAVFAC DM–7.1
(Department of the Navy, 1982) for calculation of secondary compression is adequate.
(7) The disposal cell is divided into appropriate zones, depending on the field conditions, for
assessment of differential settlement, and appropriate settlement magnitudes are calculated
and assigned to each zone.
(8) Results of settlement analyses are properly documented and are related to assessment of
overall behavior of the reclaimed pile.
(9) An adequate analysis of the potential for development of cracks in the radon/infiltration
barrier as a result of differential settlements is provided (Lee and Shen, 1969).
Liquifaction Potential
NUREG-1620, Section 2.4.3: The analysis of the liquefaction potential will be
acceptable if the following criteria are met:
(1) Applicable laboratory and/or field tests are properly conducted (NRC, 1978, 1979;
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1970, 1972).
(2) Data for all relevant parameters for assessing liquefaction potential are adequately
collected and the variability has been quantified.
(3) Methods used for interpretation of test data and assessment of liquefaction potential
are consistent with current practice in the geotechnical engineering profession (Seed and
Idriss, 1971, 1982; National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, 1997). An
assessment of the potential adverse effects that complete or partial liquefaction could
have on the stability of the embankment may be based on cyclic triaxial test data obtained
from undisturbed soil samples taken from the critical zones in the site area (Seed and
Harder, 1990; Shannon & Wilson, Inc. and Agbabian-Jacobsen Associates, 1972).
(4) If procedures based on laboratory tests combined with ground response analyses are
used, laboratory test results are corrected to account for the difference between laboratory
and field conditions (NRC, 1978; Naval Facility Engineering Command, 1983).
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-30
(5) The time history of earthquake ground motions used in the analysis is consistent with
the design seismic event.
(6) If the potential for complete or partial liquefaction exists, the effects such liquefaction
could have on the stability of slopes and settlement of tailings are adequately quantified.
(7) If a potential for global liquefaction is identified, mitigation measures consistent with
current engineering practice or redesign of tailings ponds/embankments are proposed and
the proposed measures provide reasonable assurance that the liquefaction potential has
been eliminated or mitigated.
(8) If minor liquefaction potential is identified and is evaluated to have only a localized
effect that may not directly alter the stability of embankments, the effect of liquefaction is
adequately accounted for in analyses of both differential and total settlement and is
shown not to compromise the intended performance of the radon barrier. Additionally,
the disposal cell is shown to be capable of withstanding the liquefaction potential
associated with the expected maximum ground acceleration from earthquakes. The
licensee may use post-earthquake stability methods (e.g., Ishihara and Yoshimine, 1990)
based on residual strengths and deformation analysis to examine the effects of
liquefaction potential. Furthermore, the effect of potential localized lateral displacement
from liquefaction, if any, is adequately analyzed with respect to slope stability and
disposal cell integrity.
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 2-
11/01: PROLIFERATION
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40 Appendix A, Criterion 2: To
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.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-31
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 3-
12/01: PLACEMENT BELOW GRADE
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 3: 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 reflect 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 sufficiently 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 embankments must be minimized by excavation
to the maximum extent reasonably achievable or appropriate given the geologic and hydrologic
conditions at a site. In these cases, it must be demonstrated that an above grade disposal program
will provide reasonably equivalent isolation of the tailings from natural erosional forces.
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 4-
13/01: LOCATION AND DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 4: 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) Embankment 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 tailings were disposed of below grade; this could, for example, lead
to slopes of about 10 horizontal to 1 vertical (10h:1v) or less steep. In general, slopes should not
be steeper than about 5h:1v. Where steeper slopes are proposed, reasons why a slope less steep
than 5h:1v would be impracticable should be provided, and compensating factors and conditions
which make such slopes acceptable should be identified.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-32
(d) A full self-sustaining vegetative cover must be established or rock cover employed to reduce
wind and water erosion to negligible levels.
Where a full vegetative cover 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 traffic or by natural process, and to preclude
undercutting and piping:
• Shape, size, composition, and gradation of rock particles (excepting bedding material average
particles size must be at least cobble size or greater);
• Rock cover thickness and zoning of particles by size; and
• Steepness of underlying slopes.
Individual rock fragments must be dense, sound, and resistant to abrasion, and must be free from
cracks, seams, and other defects that would tend to unduly increase their destruction by water
and frost 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
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 cover on slopes, areas
toward which surface runoff might be directed must be well protected with substantial rock cover
(rip rap). In addition to providing for stability of the impoundment system itself, overall stability,
erosion potential, and geomorphology of surrounding terrain must 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 defined in
section III(g) of Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 100. The term "maximum credible earthquake"
means that earthquake which would cause the maximum vibratory ground motion based upon an
evaluation of earthquake potential considering the regional and local geology and seismology
and specific characteristics of local subsurface material.
(f) The impoundment, where feasible, should be designed to incorporate features which will
promote deposition. For example, design features which promote deposition of sediment
suspended in any runoff which flows into the impoundment area might be utilized; the object of
such a design feature would be to enhance the thickness of cover over time.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-33
Relevant NRC Guidance
Site Location and Layout
RG 3.8, Section 2.1: Provide a map that shows the site and its location with respect to
State, county, and other political subdivisions. On detailed maps, show the location of the
boundary of the proposed restricted area (10 CFR Part 20); the applicant's property;
adjacent properties, including water bodies, wooded areas, and farms; nearby settlements;
industrial plants, parks, and other public facilities; and transportation links (railroads,
highways, waterways). Indicate total acreage owned or leased by the applicant and that
part occupied by or which will be modified for the mine and mill. Indicate other existing
and proposed uses of applicant's property and the acreage devoted to these uses.
Describe any plans for site modifications such as a visitors' center. A contour map of the
site should also be supplied with elevation contours of an interval suitable to show
significant variations of the site environs and drainage gradients. In addition, indicate if
the site is in the vicinity of a flood plain. This information should be supplied as separate
maps, if required, for clarity.
Site Area
RG 3.8, Section 3.1: A map of the site area should be included; it should clearly show
the following:
1. The location of the site boundary.
2. The location and orientation of principal structures within the site area.
Principal structures should be identified as to function, e.g., mines, ore crushing
structures, chemical separation and storage, ore stock piles, waste rock dumps,
tailings disposal areas, retention and settling ponds, explosive magazines, housing
areas, administration buildings, yellowcake storage areas, parking lots.
3. The boundary lines of any restricted areas, access to which are to be controlled
by fences or other means.
4. A scale that will permit the measurement of distances with reasonable
accuracy.
5. True north.
Geography
DG-3024, Section 2.1.1: Provide a geographic description of the area in which the mill is
located, including (1) maps showing the location of the site with respect to State, county,
and local subdivisions, plus nearby inhabited areas, and transportation links and (2) maps
(topographic, if available) showing the mill, mill perimeter, tailings location, exclusion
area boundary, company property, abutting and adjacent properties, nearby water bodies,
inhabited areas, and any other relevant details related to the local geography.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-34
Land Use and Demographic Surveys (Land)
RG 3.8, Section 6.1.4.2: The applicant should describe its program for identifying the
actual land use in the site environs and for acquiring demographic data for the region.
Uses of Adjacent Lands and Waters
RG 3.8, Section 2.2: Indicate, within an 8-km (5-mi) radius, the nature and extent of
present and projected land use (e.g., agriculture, livestock raising, dairies, pasturelands,
residences, wildlife preserves, sanctuaries, hunting areas, industries, recreation,
transportation) and any recent trends such as major or unexpected changes in population
or industrial patterns. Note whether any other nuclear fuel cycle facilities are located or
are proposed within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the site.
Provide in tabular form for each of the 22-1/2-degree sectors centered on one of the 16
compass points, i.e., north, north northeast, etc., the distances [to a distance of 8 km (5
mi)] from the center of the site to the following:
• Nearest cattle (or other meat animals) grazing on natural forage, with types
and numbers of animals specified.
• Nearest game animals consumed by sportsmen.
• Nearest residence.
• Nearest site boundary.
• Nearest vegetable garden larger than 50 m2 (60 yd2) in area. The type of crop
and amounts produced should be noted.
Where possible, the applicant should provide specific information on actual consumption
of the meat from cattle and game animals.
Provide data on annual production and distribution of meat (kg) and truck farming
produce (kg) within an 80-km (50-mi) radius from the proposed facility. Provide
information on grazing season (months of year) and feeding regimens for cattle.
Agricultural production, crop yield, grazing, and feeding data may be obtained from
sources such as local, State, and Federal agricultural agencies, agricultural agents, and
other reliable sources.
Identify the location, nature, and amounts of present and projected surface and ground-
water use (e.g., water supplies, irrigation, reservoirs, recreation, and transportation)
within 16 km (10 mi) of the site and the present and projected population (during the
active life of the mill) associated with each use point, where appropriate.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-35
Data on both present and projected future water use should be summarized and tabulated;
users should be located on maps of legible scale. Tabulations should include:
1. Location: Include symbols shown on maps identifying the location of water
users. Provide map coordinates if appropriate.
2. Distance from mill.
3. Withdrawal rate: Provide present and projected withdrawal rate (in liters per
second or cubic meters per second) for each water use.
4. Return rates: Provide present and projected return rates (in liters per second or
cubic meters per second), if appropriate.
5. Type of water use: Provide type of water use for each location, e.g., municipal,
industrial, irrigation, stock/game watering.
6. In addition, for ground-water use: Indicate depth of wells, groundwater
elevation, and drawdown rates and characterize the use of each aquifer.
7. Source and projection of water-use estimates: Where use rates are anticipated
to change over the life of the project and beyond, indicate projections and the
source of the projection information. Sources for such projections may be
available from users or planning agencies at different levels of government.
For items 3 and 4 above, if use varies significantly seasonally, indicate monthly values.
Provide data on the annual recreational and commercial fish catch from waters within an
8-km (5-mi) radius of the site. Report the catch by principal species, location, and amount
used for human consumption (note amounts consumed locally).
Population Distribution
RG 3.8, Section 2.3: Population data presented should be based on the most recent
census data. On a map of suitable scale that identifies places of significant population
grouping, such as cities and towns, within an 80-km (50-mi) radius, concentric circles
should be drawn with the mill at the center point, at distances of 0.1, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0,
4.0, 5.0, 10.0, 20.0, 30.0, 40.0, 50.0, 60.0, 70.0 and 80.0 kilometers. The circles should be
divided into 22-1/2-degree sectors with each sector centered on one of the 16 compass
points (with reference to true north, i.e., north-northeast, northeast, etc.). A table (see
table in Appendix A) appropriately keyed to the map should provide the current
residential population within each area for the expected first year of mill operation and
census years through the anticipated life of the mill. The tables should provide separate
and cumulative population totals for each sector and annular ring. Distance to the nearest
residence should be noted for each sector. The basis for population projections should be
described.
Descriptive material should include tables giving the population of neighboring schools,
plants, hospitals and residential areas within 8 km (5 mi). Visitor statistics for such areas
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-36
as sports facilities, residential areas, and parks within 8 km (5 mi) of the project site(s)
should also be included.
Demography
DG-3024, Section 2.1.2: Describe the potentially affected population within a 5-mile
radius of the mill. Provide current resident population information based on most recent
census data and the projected population for the anticipated life of the mill. Identify and
discuss significant transient or seasonal population variations, including the bases for
assumptions and projections.
Meteorology
RG 3.8, Section 2.8: Provide a description of the meteorological diffusion characteristics
of the site and its surrounding area. The description should include the use of data
collected for at least one annual cycle from an onsite or nearby local meteorological
station, plus examination of additional regional meteorological information. Sufficient
data should be included to permit independent staff evaluation and assessment of
atmospheric diffusion characteristics.
The following data concerning site meteorology from meteorological measurements
taken onsite and at nearby representative stations should be presented:
1. Quarterly and annual wind rose presentation for the 16 compass directions.
2. Quarterly and annual wind speed, wind direction, and atmospheric stability data
in joint frequency form at heights representative of effluent releases.
3. Total precipitation and evaporation by month.
This information should be fully documented as to validity of its representation of
expected long-term conditions at and near the site.
Present the joint wind speed-stability-direction frequencies (in item 2 above) in tabular
form, giving the frequencies as fractions when using 5-year National Weather Service
summaries or as number of occurrences when using only 1 or 2 years of onsite data. The
data should be presented for each of the 16 compass directions, and the stability
categories should be established to conform as closely as possible with those of Pasquill.*
In addition, the annual average inversion height should be provided from other nearby
weather stations.
Guidance on acceptable onsite meteorological measurements and data format for nuclear
reactors is presented in Regulatory Guide 1.23, "Onsite Meteorological Programs." Staff
guidance should be requested for adaptation of relevant portions of this document to the
specific mill project. See Appendix A of this regulatory guide for appropriate format for
meteorological data.
In addition, this section should provide a discussion of general climatology, the existing
levels of air pollution and their effects on site operations, the relationship of the
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-37
meteorological data gathered on a regional basis to local data, the impact of the local
terrain and large lakes and other bodies of water on meteorological conditions in the area,
and the occurrence of severe weather in the area and its effects. Data on diurnal and
monthly averages and extremes of temperature and humidity should also be provided.
DG-3024, Section 2.2: Provide a meteorological description of the site and surrounding
area. Include sufficient information to permit the NRC staff to independently evaluate the
atmospheric diffusion characteristics of the local area. State the sources of information
and data supplied, including (1) diurnal and monthly averages and extremes of
temperature and humidity, (2) monthly wind characteristics including speeds and
direction, annual joint frequency of windspeed, and direction by stability category, (3)
data on precipitation, and (4) frequency of occurrence and effects of storms.
RG 3.8, Section 6.1.3.1: Identify sources of meteorological data used in the atmospheric
transport models . . . . Locations and elevations of observation stations, instrumentation,
and frequency and duration of measurements should be specified both for the applicant's
measuring activities and for activities of governmental agencies or other organizations on
whose information the applicant intends to rely. Guidance for an acceptable
meteorological measurement program for nuclear reactors is presented in Regulatory
Guide 1.23 (Safety Guide 23), "Onsite Meteorological Programs." See Appendix C for
the format for reporting meteorological data. The applicant's description should show the
basis for predicting such effects as the dispersion of airborne effluents and should present
the methodology for gathering baseline data.
Models (Air)
RG 3.8, Section 6.1.3.2: Any models used by the applicant, either to derive estimates of
basic meteorological information or to estimate the effects of effluents, should be
described in detail and their validity and accuracy discussed. Staff guidance should be
sought in adapting existing guidance to the particular effluents from uranium mines and
mills.
Geology and Soils
RG 3.8, Section 2.5: Describe the major geological and soils aspects of the site and its
environs. The discussion should note the stratigraphy, structure, and tectonic history.
Comment on regional continuity, faulting, dip, and strikes of waterbearing formations
that will be affected. An inventory of economically important minerals and energy-
related deposits, in addition to the uranium ore, should be included. Any unique
mineralogical or paleontological deposits of particular scientific interest should also be
noted. Any effect that planned operations might have on the future availability of other
mineral resources should be noted.
Detailed geological data at building sites and in the vicinity of tailings or other effluent
impoundments, sanitary landfills, spoil disposal areas, and sewage disposal facilities
should be included. These data should include strike and dip and lateral and vertical
distribution of permeable layers, shales, and clays, and data on any fault, fracture, or joint
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-38
pattern that may exist. Locations of local outcroppings where seepage from landfills,
dumps, impoundments, and sewage facilities is likely to occur should be noted.
The location of ground water with respect to tailings disposal areas, spoil dumps, liquid
impoundments, sanitary landfills, and sewage disposal facilities is important for the
assessment of possible ground-water contamination. The discussion should include a
statement concerning the hydraulic properties (such as permeability and porosity) of the
materials between the ground water and these facilities.
DG-3024, Section 2.4.1: Describe the geologic aspects of the site. Note the broad
features and general characteristics of the site and environs, including stratigraphy and
structural geology. Describe characteristics of the subsurface soil or rock, including the
identification and evaluation of zones of deformation that might act as conduits for
contaminants.
Seismology
RG 3.8, Section 2.6 and DG-3024, Section 2.4.2: Discuss the seismicity (including
history) of the region. Where possible, associate seismic events with tectonic features
identified in the geology discussion. Furnish a regional earthquake epicenter map
showing site location.
Hydrologic Description of Site
NUREG-1620, Section 3.1.3: The hydrologic description of the site will be considered
acceptable if:
(1) The description of structures, facilities, and erosion protection designs is
sufficiently complete to allow independent evaluation of the impact of flooding
and intense rainfall.
(2) Site topographic maps are of good quality and of sufficient scale to allow
independent analysis of pre- and post-construction drainage patterns.
(3) The reclamation plan contains sufficient information for the staff to
independently evaluate the hydraulic designs presented. In general, detailed
information is needed for each method that is used to determine the hydraulic
designs and erosion protection provided to meet NRC regulations. NUREG–1623
(NRC, 2002) discusses acceptable methods for designing erosion protection to
provide reasonable assurance of effective long-term control and, thus, conform to
NRC requirements. NUREG–1623 (NRC, 2002) also provides discussions and
technical bases for use of specific criteria to meet the 1,000-year longevity
requirement, without the use of active maintenance. Specific design methods are
provided and form the primary basis for staff review of erosion protection
designs.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-39
Surface Water (Hydrology)
RG 3.8, Section 2.7.2: Describe the location, size, shape, and other hydrologic
characteristics of water bodies in the environs of the site. Surface-water descriptions for
receiving streams should include the channel shape, slope, roughness coefficient,
sediment concentrations (suspended), flow records (at nearest gauges), and dispersion
coefficients; for ponds and lakes the geometry of the bed, wind currents, and suspended
solids (sediment) concentration.
Include a description of upstream and downstream river control structures, and provide a
topographic map showing the major hydrologic features.
DG-3024, Section 2.3.2: Describe the location, size, shape, and other hydrologic
characteristics of streams, rivers, lakes, marshes, estuaries, and other bodies of water in
the environs. Include a description of any upstream and downstream river control
structures and downstream water supply users, including location, amount, and purpose
(e.g., domestic, agricultural), and provide a map (topographic, if available) showing
major hydrologic features of the area. Describe the mill site upstream rainfall catchment
areas to determine the potential for flooding and erosion of the tailings disposal area.
Flooding Determinations
NUREG-1620, Section 3.2.3: The flooding determinations for the site will be considered
acceptable if: The designs conform to the suggested criteria in Appendix D to NUREG–
1623 (NRC, 2002). NUREG–1623 (NRC, 2002) discusses acceptable methods for
designing erosion protection to provide reasonable assurance of effective long-term
control and to meet NRC requirements. It also presents discussions and technical bases
for use of specific criteria to meet the 1,000-year longevity requirement without the use
of active maintenance. Acceptable design methods are presented and form the primary
basis for staff review of erosion protection designs. These methods were derived from
regulatory requirements, other regulatory guidance, staff experience, and various
technical studies.
Information pertinent to computation of the design flood is submitted in sufficient detail
to enable the staff to perform an independent flood estimate, Specifically:
• Model input parameters are adequate.
• Staff and the reclamation plan estimates of flood levels and peak discharges are
in agreement.
• Computational methods for design flood estimates are adequate.
“Worst conditions” postulated in the analysis of upstream dam failures are (1) an
approximate 25-year flood on a normal operating reservoir pool level coincident with the
dam-site equivalent of the earthquake for which the remedial action project is designed,
(2) a flood of about one-half the severity of a probable maximum flood on a normal
reservoir pool level coincident with the dam-site equivalent of one-half of the earthquake
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-40
for which the remedial action project is designed; and (3) a probable maximum flood (or
design flood) on a normal reservoir pool.
Conditions 1 and 2 are applied when the dam is not designed with adequate seismic
resistance; Condition 3 is applied when the dam is not designed to safely store or pass the
design flood. If the proposed design is based on less than a probable maximum flood
event, the licensee offers reasonable assurance of conforming to the stability requirement
of at least 200 years. Dam failure analyses are either realistic or conservative, and include
locations and sizes of upstream dams, instantaneous failure (complete removal) of the
dam embankment, and compute the peak outflow rate.
Surface Water Profiles, Channel Velocities, and Shear Stresses
NUREG-1620, Section 3.3.3: The water surface profiles, channel velocities, and shear
stresses calculated for the site will be considered acceptable if: The proposed designs
conform to the suggested criteria in Appendix D to NUREG–1623 (NRC, 2002).
NUREG–1623 (NRC, 2002) discusses acceptable methods for designing erosion
protection to provide reasonable assurance of effective long-term control and to comply
with NRC requirements. This document also contains discussions and technical bases for
use of specific criteria to meet the 1,000-year longevity requirement without the use of
active maintenance. Specific design methods are presented, and reasonable similarity to
these methods forms the primary basis for staff acceptance of erosion protection designs.
Specifically:
• Localized flood depths, velocities, and shear stresses used in models for rock
size determination or soil cover slope analysis conform to the guidance presented
in Appendix D to NUREG–1623 (NRC, 2002).
• For off-site flooding effects, computational models have been correctly and
appropriately used and the data from the models have been correctly interpreted.
• Acceptable models and input parameters have been used in all the various
portions of the flood analyses and the resulting flood forces have been adequately
accommodated.
Ground Water (Hydrology)
RG 3.8, Section 2.7.1: Describe the hydrology of the region that affects the local ground-
water aquifers, formations, sources, and sinks. Describe the recharge potential of the
immediate plant area, including vertical and horizontal permeabilities of the natural and
modified terrain, as well as that of tailing disposal areas. Indicate gradients and seasonal
variations in ground-water levels beneath the site. Furnish sufficient site-specific data for
the evaluation of the effects of construction and operation of the facility on established
ground-water tables and usage. This is especially important for consideration of
dewatering operations in associated mines.
Descriptions of the major aquifers in the area should include piezometric contour maps,
hydraulic gradients, permeabilities for representative geologic features, total and effective
porosities, bulk density estimates, storage coefficients, dispersion and distribution
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-41
(sorption) coefficients, descriptions of pertinent geologic formations and soil types,
including formation depth throughout the site and to the nearest downgradient well or
water body, chemical and radiological properties, and time histories of ground-water
fluctuations.
The applicant should provide data concerning any drawdown of ground water that may
be caused by withdrawals from neighboring major industrial, agricultural, or municipal
wells.
DG-3024, Section 2.3.1: Describe the regional and local ground water aquifers,
formations, sources, and sinks. Describe the recharge potential of the immediate plant
area, including vertical and horizontal permeabilities of the natural and modified terrain,
as well as that of tailings areas. Describe the present and projected regional use and
tabulate existing private users within the area influenced by the proposed activities and
all local and regional public users (e.g., amounts, water levels, locations, and drawdown).
Describe gradients and seasonal variations in ground water levels beneath the site.
Radiological Surveys
RG 3.8, Section 6.1: Discuss the methods used to determine the preoperational radiation
levels at the site and environs and the concentrations of radionuclides in important local
and regional biota, soil, sediment, vegetation, air, and surface and ground waters.
Site and Uranium Mill Tailings Characteristics
NUREG-1620, Section 2.1.3: The site characterization information constitutes part of
the input data needed for analysis and design of the tailings impoundment facility. The
site characterization will be acceptable if it provides the needed input for the design and
analysis of the disposal facility and meets the following criteria:
(1) The site stratigraphy is described in sufficient detail to provide an
understanding of the site-specific subsurface features, including structural features
and other characteristics of underlying soil and rock.
(2) Information on regional and local faults and seismicity, as obtained from field
data, published literature, and historical records is presented in sufficient detail to
effectively incorporate that information into a geotechnical stability analyses.
(Note: This aspect of the review should be coordinated with the geology and
seismology review performed in accordance with standard review plan Chapter
1.)
(3) Sampling scope and techniques are appropriate and sufficient to ensure that
samples collected are representative of the range of in situ soil conditions, taking
into consideration variability and uncertainties in such conditions within the site.
(4) For all soils that might be unstable because of their physical or chemical
properties, locations and dimensions are identified and the properties have been
documented.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-42
(5) Investigations (including laboratory and field testing) are conducted using
appropriate standards published by the American Society for Testing and
Materials or the International Society for Rock Mechanics and are sufficient to
establish the static and dynamic engineering parameters of borrow materials,
other materials, tailings, and underlying soil and rock materials at the site (NRC,
1978, 1979).
(6) A detailed discussion of laboratory sample preparation techniques is
presented, when standard procedures are not used. For critical laboratory tests,
details such as how saturation of the sample was determined and maintained
during testing, or how the pore pressures changed are provided. A detailed and
quantitative discussion of the criteria used to verify that the samples were
properly taken and tested in sufficient number to define the critical soil
parameters for the site is presented. In the case of tailings material (e.g., license
amendment reviews), the evaluations of its strength and settlement characteristics
are presented in detail.
(7) Parameter values are presented to enable evaluation of properties of mill
tailings, borrow materials, other materials, and underlying soil and rock, including
the following:
(a) Compressibility and rate of consolidation
(b) Shear strength, including, for sensitive soils, possible loss of shear
strength resulting from strain-softening
(c) Liquefaction potential
(d) Permeability
(e) Dispersion characteristics
(f) Swelling and shrinkage
(g) Long-term moisture content for radon barrier material
(h) Cover cracking
(8) Soil stratigraphy and relevant parameters that are used in the geotechnical
evaluations (settlement, stability, liquefaction potential, etc.) are discussed in
detail.
(9) Records of historical ground-water-level fluctuations at the site as obtained
from monitoring local wells and springs and/or by analysis of piezometer and
permeability data from tests conducted at the site are presented in sufficient detail
to effectively incorporate the information into geotechnical stability analyses.
(Note: This aspect of the review should be coordinated with the hydrogeologic
characterization review performed according to standard review plan Chapter
4.0.)
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-43
The information should be sufficient to provide the required input for the design of the
facility and to enable the reviewer to assess compliance with the regulatory requirements,
such as site features contributing to waste isolation; facility location with respect to an
active fault; and reasonable assurance of control of radiological hazards to be effective
for 1,000 years to the extent reasonably achievable, and in any case, for at least 200
years.
Disposal Cell Cover Engineering Design
NUREG-1620, Section 2.5.3: The assessment of the disposal cell cover design and
engineering parameters will be acceptable if it meets the following criteria:
(1) Detailed descriptions of the disposal cell material types [e.g., Unified Soil Classification
System (Holtz and Kovacs, 1981)] and/or soil mixtures (e.g., bentonite additive) and the
basis for their selection are presented. An analysis is included demonstrating that an
adequate quantity of the specified borrow material has been identified at the borrow source.
The information on borrow material includes boring and test pit logs and compaction test
data. The soils that are considered suitable include the Unified Soil Classification System
Classes CL, CH, SC, and CL-ML, with desirable characteristics and limitations as listed in
Table 3-1 of the “Construction Methods and Guidance for Sealing Penetrations in Soil
Covers” (Bennett and Homz, 1991; Bennett and Kimbrell, 1991). The preferred material for
the low-permeability layers is inorganic clay soil. This soil should be compacted to a low
saturated hydraulic conductivity of at least 1 x 10-7 cm/sec. For drainage layers, cobble types
GW, GP, SP, and SW are recommended, with GW and GP being the preferred types
(Bennett, 1991). Measures for resisting cracking, heaving, and settlement, and providing
protection from burrowing animals, root penetration, and erosion over a long period of time
are described.
(2) A sufficiently detailed description of the applicable field and laboratory investigations
and testing that were completed, and the material properties (e.g., permeability, moisture-
density relationships, gradation, shrinkage and dispersive characteristics, resistance to
freeze-thaw degradation, cracking potential, and chemical compatibility, including any
amendment materials) are identified (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1970, 1972; Fermulk
and Haug, 1990; NRC, 1978, 1979; Lee and Shen, 1969; Spangler and Handy, 1982).
(3) Details are presented (including sketches) of the disposal cell cover termination at
boundaries, with any considerations for safely accommodating subsurface water flows.
(4) A schematic diagram displaying various disposal cell layers and thicknesses is provided.
The particle size gradation of the disposal cell bedding layer and the rock layer are
established to ensure stability against particle migration during the period of regulatory
interest (NRC, 1982).
(5) The effect of possible freeze-and-thaw cycles on soil strength and radon barrier
effectiveness is adequately considered (e.g., Aitken and Berg, 1968). If the region
experiences prolonged freezing, the disposal cell cover may be affected by the freeze-thaw
cycle. During freezing, ice crystals and lenses can form in the soil, causing heaving. On the
other hand, during melting and thawing, the soil may lose its bearing capacity because of
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-44
development of supersaturated conditions (Spangler and Handy, 1982). Major factors
affecting growth of ice in soil are the temperature below the freezing point, the capillary
characteristics of the soil, and the presence of water. The reviewer should check whether the
soil is susceptible to frost heave, considering that uniformly graded soils containing more
than 10 percent of particles smaller than 0.02 mm and well-graded soils with more than 3
percent of particles smaller than 0.02 mm are susceptible (Holtz and Kovacs, 1981; Spangler
and Handy, 1982). After many freeze-thaw cycles, the soil may become a loose collection of
aggregates with significantly reduced overall strength.
(6) A description is given (with sketches) of any penetrations (e.g., monitoring wells)
through the disposal cell system, including details of penetration sealing and disposal cell
cover integrity. Bennett and Kimbrell (1991) suggest methods for seal design that are
acceptable.
(7) An adequate analysis is presented of the potential for development of cracks in the
disposal cell cover as a result of differential settlement and shrinkage. Note that cracking
issues associated with settlement are discussed in standard review plan Section 2.3.3.
(8) An adequate description of the geomembranes and their major properties (e.g., physical,
mechanical, and chemical) is provided if low permeability geomembranes are proposed as a
part of the disposal cell cover. Methods for installation of the membranes in accordance with
the manufacturer's recommendations are discussed. The shear strength of the interface
between compacted clay and geomembranes used in the stability analyses under both static
and dynamic loads is noted. The expected service life of the geomembrane is analyzed.
(9) Information on site characterization, slope stability, settlement, and liquefaction used in
the disposal cell cover design appropriately reflects the Licensee’s evaluation, and therefore,
constitutes inputs that would contribute to the demonstration of disposal cell design
compliance with the regulations.
Design of Erosion Protection Covers
NUREG-1620, Section, 3.5.3; The design erosion protection covers for the site will be
considered acceptable if: the designs conform to the suggested criteria in NUREG–1623
(NRC, 2002). NUREG–1623 (NRC, 2002) discusses acceptable methods for designing
erosion protection to provide reasonable assurance of effective long-term control and,
thus, meet NRC requirements. This document also provides discussions and technical
bases for use of specific criteria to meet the 1,000-year longevity requirement without the
use of active maintenance. Specific acceptance criteria for many of the review areas are
presented and form the primary basis for staff review of erosion protection designs. These
criteria were derived from regulatory requirements, other regulatory guidance, staff
experience, and various technical references. If active maintenance is proposed as an
alternative to the designs suggested above, such an approach will be found acceptable if
the following criteria are met:
(1) The maintenance approach must achieve an equivalent level of stabilization
and containment and protection of public health, safety, and the environment.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-45
(2) The licensee must demonstrate a site-specific need for the use of active
maintenance.
(3) The licensee must provide funding for the maintenance by increasing the
amount of the required surety. The licensee should also work with the long-term
custodian to assess any additional funding requirements related to long-term
surveillance and monitoring.
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION
5A(1)-14/01: GROUND-WATER PROTECTION STANDARDS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 5A(1):
The primary ground-water protection standard is a design standard for surface impoundments
used to manage uranium and thorium byproduct material. Unless exempted under paragraph
5A(3) of this criterion, surface impoundments (except for an existing portion) must have a liner
that is designed, constructed, and installed to prevent any migration of wastes out of the
impoundment to the adjacent subsurface soil, ground water, or surface water at any time during
the active life (including the closure period) of the impoundment. The liner may be constructed
of materials that may allow wastes to migrate into the liner (but not into the adjacent subsurface
soil, ground water, or surface water) during the active life of the facility, provided that
impoundment closure includes removal or decontamination of all waste residues, contaminated
containment system components (liners, etc.), contaminated subsoils, and structures and
equipment contaminated with waste and leachate. For impoundments that will be closed with the
liner 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 the facility.
Relevant NRC Guidance
Groundwater Protection Standards
NUREG-1620, Section 4.2.3: The development of ground-water protection standards
will be acceptable if it meets the following criteria:
(1) Hazardous constituents are identified using the definition given in 10 CFR Part 40,
Appendix A, Criterion 5(B).
(2) A point of compliance is established in accordance with 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A,
Criterion 5B(1).
The point of compliance is the location at which the ground water is monitored to
determine compliance with the ground-water protection standards. The objective in
selecting the point of compliance is to provide the earliest practicable warning that the
impoundment is releasing hazardous constituents to the ground water. The point of
compliance must be selected to provide prompt indication of ground-water contamination
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-46
on the hydraulically downgradient edge of the disposal area. The point of compliance is
defined as the intersection of a vertical plane with the uppermost aquifer at the
hydraulically downgradient limit of the waste management area.
The “uppermost aquifer” is defined in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, as “the geologic
formation nearest the natural ground surface that is an aquifer, as well as lower aquifers
that are hydraulically interconnected with this aquifer within the facility’s property
boundary.” Therefore, a proper selection of the point of compliance includes
identification of point of compliance locations in the aquifer nearest to the ground
surface, as well as other aquifers that are hydraulically interconnected with that aquifer,
as warranted by site-specific conditions.
When tailings are disposed of on site, the NRC generally interprets the downgradient
limit of the waste management area to be the edge of the reclaimed tailings side slopes.
However, it is not recommended that licensees be required to compromise the cover
integrity to install monitoring wells at the actual edge of the reclaimed tailings.
(3) A concentration limit is specified for each of the hazardous constituents. Those limits
may be:
(a) Commission-Approved Background Concentrations.
10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, requires that the Commission-approved background
concentration be the concentration limit, except for constituents listed in Table 5C
of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, which, if present in excess of background, are
subject to the respective maximum concentration limits listed in Table 5C.
Proper statistical methods, such as those discussed in American Society for
Testing and Materials Standard D 6312, are used to determine the expected range
of naturally occurring background (baseline) concentrations for each constituent
of concern. Acceptable statistical techniques are also presented in Haan (1977)
and Hirsch, et al. (1992).
(b) Maximum Concentration Limits The respective values given in the table in
paragraph 5C of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, must not exceed if the constituent
is listed in the table and if the background level of the constituent is below the
value listed. Note that the U.S. EPA has revised some of these limits under the
Safe Drinking Water Act, therefore, for risk assessments used for an alternate
concentration limit proposal, where a drinking water exposure pathway is
estimated, the reviewer should refer to the most recent Safe Drinking Water Act
maximum concentration limits.
(c) Alternate Concentration Limits Alternate concentration limits are established
on a site-specific basis, provided it can be demonstrated that (i) the constituents
will not pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the
environment, as long as the alternate concentration limits are not exceeded and
(ii) the alternate concentration limits are as low as is reasonably achievable,
considering practicable corrective actions. Licensees are required to implement
detection monitoring programs to detect and identify site-specific hazardous
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-47
constituents, and compliance monitoring programs to verify compliance with the
established site-specific standards for individual constituents. Standard review
plan Sections 4.3.3 and 4.4.3 contain acceptance criteria for determining potential
hazards, and for “as low as is reasonably achievable” demonstrations,
respectively.
When an applicant proposes alternate concentration limits, the reviewer should
recognize that additional site characterization may be necessary to demonstrate
the potential risk to human health and the environment is acceptable. Typically,
long-term ground-water monitoring will be required to assure that human health
and the environment are protected.
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION
5A(2)-15/01: LINER
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 5A(2):
The liner required by paragraph 5A(1) above must be:
(a) 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;
(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.
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION
5A(4)-17/01: PREVENT OVERTOPPING
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix 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.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-48
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION
5A(5)-18/01: DIKES
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 5A(5):
When dikes are used to form the surface impoundment, the dikes must be designed, constructed,
and maintained with sufficient 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
leakage during the active life of the impoundment.
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION
6(1)-19/01: COVER AND CLOSURE AT END OF MILLING OPERATIONS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(1): In
disposing of waste byproduct material, licensees shall place an earthen cover (or approved
alternative) over tailings or wastes at the end of milling operations and shall close the waste
disposal area in accordance with a design which provides reasonable assurance of control of
radiological hazards to (i) be effective for 1,000 years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and,
in any case, for at least 200 years, and (ii) limit releases of radon-222 from uranium byproduct
materials, and radon-220 from thorium byproduct materials, to the atmosphere so as not to
exceed an average release rate of 20 picocuries per square meter per second (pCi/m2s) to the
extent practicable throughout the effective design life determined pursuant to (1)(i) of this
Criterion. In computing required tailings cover thicknesses, moisture in soils in excess of
amounts found normally in similar soils in similar circumstances may not be considered. Direct
gamma exposure from the tailings or wastes should be reduced to background levels. The effects
of any thin synthetic layer may not be taken into account in determining the calculated radon
exhalation level. If non-soil materials are proposed as cover materials, it must be demonstrated
that these materials will not crack or degrade by differential settlement, weathering, or other
mechanism, over long-term intervals.
Relevant NRC Guidance
Site and Tailings Reclamation
DG-3024, Section 8.2: Provide the proposed plan for reclamation of the site and tailings
impoundment that demonstrates compliance with the applicable requirements of
Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40. In the plan, describe the overall reclamation design and
construction considerations of the tailings impoundment. Assess the geotechnical stability
aspects of the tailings impoundment, including slope stability and liquefaction. In
addition, address the hydrologic characteristics of the site, including flooding potential,
and erosion protection features of the tailings impoundment. Include strategies for the
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-49
protection of water resources, including plans to prevent the spread of both hazardous and
radioactive contaminants from the processing site and tailings storage area into ground
water or surface water and to implement corrective action in the event these bodies
become contaminated during operations. Address the radiation protection design of the
tailings disposal impoundment cover for radon and gamma attenuation and the potential
for settlement of the tailings impoundment and resulting cracking of the radon barrier.
Include measures for cleanup of windblown tailings and other soils contaminated from
mill operations and for sampling and surveys to document that soils have been cleaned to
acceptable levels. Address the means for disposing of any ore remaining on site following
the cessation of mill operations. (See NUREG-1620, “Standard Review Plan for the
Review of a Reclamation Plan for Mill Tailings Sites Under Title II of the Uranium Mill
Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978,” issued June 2003, for additional detailed
information on the scope and content of a reclamation plan.)
Radon Attenuation
NUREG-1620, Section 5.1.3.1: The radon attenuation design will be acceptable if it
meets the following criteria:
(1) The one-dimensional, steady-state gas diffusion theory for calculating radon
flux and/or minimum cover thickness is used. An acceptable analytical method for
determining the necessary cover thickness to reduce radon flux to acceptable
limits or to determine the long-term radon flux from the proposed cover is the
computer code RAECOM (NRC, 1984) and the comparable RADON code (NRC,
1989). The main difference between the two codes is that RADON does not have
the optimization for cost benefit calculations. The staff will use the RADON code
to verify the analysis. Other methods that estimate the average surface radon
release from the covered tailings may be acceptable, if it can be shown that these
methods produce reliable estimates of radon flux.
(2) With the RAECOM and RADON computer codes, the radon concentration
above the top layer is either set to a conservative value of zero or a measured
background value is used. The precision number (the level of computational error
that is acceptable) is set at 0.001.
(3) The estimates of the material parameters used in the radon flux calculations
are reasonably conservative, considering the uncertainty of the values. For all site-
specific parameters, supporting information describing the test method and its
precision, accuracy, and applicability is provided. The basis for the parameter
values and the methods in which the values are used in the analyses are
adequately presented. Moisture-dependent parameter values (e.g., radon
emanation coefficient and diffusion coefficient) are based on the estimated long-
term moisture content of the materials at the disposal site.
The materials testing programs employ appropriate analytical methods and
sufficient and representative samples were tested to adequately determine material
property values for both cover soils and contaminated materials. In the absence of
sufficient test data, conservative estimates are chosen and justified. The quality
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-50
assurance program for parameter data is adequate and the data are available for
inspection. All parameter values are consistent with anticipated construction
specifications and represent expected long-term conditions at the site.
(4) The contaminated material thickness is determined from estimates of total
tailings production or waste placement and the areal extent, from boring logs, or
changes in elevation from pre- to post-operation. Either the estimated thickness of
a tailings source is used, or alternatively, the RADON code default value of 500
cm [16.4 ft] is used (NRC, 1989).
(5) Dry bulk densities of the cover soils and tailings material are determined from
Standard Proctor Test data (American Society for Testing and Materials D 698) or
Modified Proctor Test data (American Society for Testing and Materials D 1557).
Radon barrier materials are usually compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the
maximum dry density as determined by American Society for Testing and
Materials D 698 or to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density as
determined by American Society for Testing and Materials D 1557. Field or
placement densities to be achieved based on the construction specifications are
used in the calculations. If the pile is stabilized in place, the in situ bulk density
for the tailings is used in the analysis.
Porosities are measured by mercury porosimetry or another reliable method, or
the method for estimating the porosity of cover soils and tailings materials using
the bulk density and specific gravity given in Regulatory Guide 3.64 (NRC, 1989)
is used.
If a portion of the modeled cover (radon attenuation layers) could be affected by
freeze-thaw events, that portion is represented in the model with lower density
and corresponding higher porosity values than the unaffected portion. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (1988) and the DOE (1988) have demonstrated that
freeze-thaw cycles can increase the permeability of compacted clay by 40 to 300
times the original value. For fine-grained soils with some sand (50-percent fines),
the DOE conservatively estimated that freeze-thaw cycles could lower the density
by 14 percent (DOE, 1992). Also see the discussion in Section 2.5.3 of this
standard review plan.
(6) The long-term moisture content that approximates the lower moisture
retention capacities of the materials or another justified value is used. Estimated
values for the long-term moisture content can be compared with present in situ
values to assure that the assumed long-term value does not exceed the present
field value. Borrow samples can be taken at a depth of 120 to 500 cm (3.9 to 16.4
ft), but not close to the water table, and the borrow site conditions should be
correlated to conditions at the disposal site.
The following methods are acceptable for estimating the long-term soil moisture,
but each has limitations:
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-51
(a) Laboratory procedures American Society for Testing and Materials D
3152 (fine-textured soils) and American Society for Testing and Materials
D 2325 (coarse and medium-textured soils) for capillary moisture test (15-
bar suction) corresponding to the moisture content at which permanent
wilting of plants occurs (Baver, 1956).
(b) The empirical relationship (Rawls and Brakensiek, 1982) that predicts
water retention values of a soil on a volume basis (appears to be more
suitable to sandy and silty soil than to clayey soil) and is represented by:
c = 0.026 + 0.005x + 0.0158y
where c = predicted 15-bar soil water-retention value (volumetric
moisture content)
x = percent clay in the soil
y = percent organic matter in the soil
This method takes into consideration the particle-size distribution of the soil. Clay
particle sizes are defined here as those less than 0.002 mm in diameter. Organic
content measurement is generally determined by reaction with hydrogen peroxide
or by exposure to elevated temperature. The volumetric moisture content value
derived from this equation should be converted to a weight percentage for
application in the RAECOM and RADON codes. Other empirical correlations
(Section 7.1.3 of DOE, 1989), if adequately justified, may be acceptable.
(7) Values for Ra-226 activity (pCi/g) are measured directly from tailings samples
and other large volume sources of contaminated material, by radon equilibrium
gamma spectroscopy (allow at least 10 days for the sealed sample to equilibrate),
wet chemistry alpha spectrometry, or an equivalent procedure. If the tailings are
fairly uniform in Ra-226 content and the Ra-226 and uranium (U-238) in the ore
were approximately in equilibrium, the Ra-226 activity can be estimated from the
average ore grade processed at the site, as discussed in Regulatory Guide 3.64
(NRC, 1989). Generally, tailings should be sampled at 90-cm [3-ft] intervals to a
depth of 366 cm [12 ft], including representative sampling of slime tailings. More
than one layer of contaminated material is represented in the flux model if there
are significant differences in Ra-226 content with depth.
Since the disposal cell performance standard deals only with radon generated by
the contaminated material, it is acceptable to neglect the Ra-226 activity in the
cover soils for modeling flux, provided the cover soils are obtained from materials
not associated with ore formations or other radium-enriched materials. If deep
{below 61 cm [2 ft]} cover layers contain elevated Ra-226 or Th-230, that
material layer and its Ra-226 level is represented in the flux model.
(8) The emanation coefficient has been obtained by using methods provided in
Nielson, et al. (1982) and properly documented, or otherwise set to the reasonably
conservative (for most soils) code default value of 0.35. A value of 0.20 may be
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-52
estimated for tailings based on the literature, if supported by limited site-specific
measurements.
(9) The radon diffusion coefficient, D, represents the long-term properties of the
materials. The D value is determined from direct measurements or appropriately
calculated. The soil should be tested at the design compaction density, with a
range of moisture content values that includes the lower moisture retention
capacity of the soil so that a radon breakthrough curve can be obtained (DOE,
1989). The calculation of the diffusion coefficient, based on the long-term
moisture saturation, and porosity, as proposed in Regulatory Guide 3.64, Section
C.1.1.5 (NRC, 1989), and the optional calculation in the RADON code, are
acceptable.
(10) The soil cover thickness proposed in the reclamation design is such that the
calculated average long-term radon flux is reduced to a level that meets the
requirement in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(1).
Gamma Attenuation
NUREG-1620, Section 5.1.3.2: The proposed cover will reduce the gamma radiation from
the byproduct material to local soil background levels, and the licensee proposed an
acceptable method to demonstrate this. The data will appear in the reclamation completion
report.
Cover Radioactivity Content
NUREG-1620, Section 5.1.3.3: At least the upper 61 cm [2 ft] of the disposal cell cover
will contain levels of radioactivity essentially the same as surrounding soils, as demonstrated
by an appropriate procedure. The data will be in the reclamation completion report if not
available for the reclamation plan.
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION
6(2)-20/01: VERIFY EFFECTIVENESS OF FINAL RADON BARRIER
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(2):
As soon as reasonably achievable after emplacement of the final cover to limit releases of radon-
222 from uranium byproduct material and prior to placement of erosion protection barriers or
other features necessary for long-term control of the tailings, the licensee shall verify through
appropriate testing and analysis that the design and construction of the final radon barrier is
effective in limiting releases of radon-222 to a level not exceeding 20 pCi/m2s averaged over the
entire pile or impoundment using the procedures described in 40 CFR part 61, appendix B,
Method 115, or another method of verification approved by the Executive Secretary as being at
least as effective in demonstrating the effectiveness of the final radon barrier.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-53
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION
6(3)-21/01: PHASED EMPLACEMENT OF FINAL RADON BARRIER
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(3):
When phased emplacement of the final 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 barrier for that portion
is emplaced.
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION
6(4)-22/01: REPORT RADON BARRIER EFFECTIVENESS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, 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 10CFR40, Appendix 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
State for long-term care if requested
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION
6(5)-23/01: ELEVATED RADIUM CONCENTRATIONS IN COVER MATERIALS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following 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 elevated levels of radium; soils used for near surface cover must be essentially the same,
as far as radioactivity is concerned, as that of surrounding surface soils. This is to ensure that
surface radon exhalation is not significantly above background because of the cover material
itself.
Relevant NRC Guidance
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-54
Cover Radioactivity Content
NUREG-1620, Section 5.1.3.3: At least the upper 61 cm [2 ft] of the disposal cell cover
will contain levels of radioactivity essentially the same as surrounding soils, as demonstrated
by an appropriate procedure. The data will be in the reclamation completion report if not
available for the reclamation plan.
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION
6(6)-24/01: CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES OTHER THAN RADIUM IN
SOIL
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following 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 (ii) 15 pCi/g of radium-226, or, in the case of thorium byproduct
material, radium-228, averaged over 15-cm thick layers more than 15 cm below the surface.
Byproduct material containing concentrations of radionuclides other than radium in soil, and
surface activity on remaining structures, must not result in a total effective 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 100-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. The 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 11, 1999.
Relevant NRC Guidance
Background Radiological Characteristics
RG 3.8, Section 2.10: Regional radiological data should be reported, including both
natural background radiation levels and results of measurements of concentrations of
radioactive materials occurring in important biota, in soil and rocks, in air, and in
regional surface and local ground waters. These data, whether determined during the
applicant's preoperational surveillance program or obtained from other sources, should be
referenced.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-55
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION
6(7)-25/01: NONRADIOLOGICAL HAZARDS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following 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.
Relevant NRC Guidance
Regional Nonradiological Characteristics
RG 3.8 Section 2.11: Regional nonradiological characteristics, particularly those that are
similar to expected site-related effluents, should be reported. Data should include such
parameters as heavy metals and other potentially toxic substances, atmospheric pollutants,
and dusts that could affect water or air quality. Other regional sources of these same
materials should be noted along with a discussion of the possible contribution to levels
found at the facility site.
Concentrations of Nonradioactive Wastes
RG 3.8, Section 5.3: [T]he specific concentrations of nonradioactive wastes in effluents
at the points of discharge should be compared with natural ambient concentrations
without the discharge and also compared with applicable standards. The projected effects
of the effluents for both acute and chronic exposure of human beings (including those
resulting from any long-term buildup in soils and sediments and in the biota) should be
identified and discussed. Dilution and mixing of discharges into the receiving environs
should be discussed in detail, and estimates of concentrations at various relevant
distances from the point of discharge should be provided that relate to factors such as
dilution, habitations, wells, and water intakes. The effects on humans from changes in
terrestrial and aquatic environments from chemicals that contaminate ground water
should be included.
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION
6A(1)-26/01: COMPLETION OF FINAL RADON BARRIER
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 6A(1):
For impoundments containing uranium byproduct materials, the final radon barrier must be
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-56
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 technological feasibility
as specifically defined in the Introduction of this appendix includes factors beyond the control of
the licensee.) Deadlines for completion of the final radon barrier and, if 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 erosion protection barriers
or other features necessary for long-term control of the tailings must also be completed in a
timely manner in accordance with a written, Executive Secretary-approved reclamation plan.
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 7-
29/01: PREOPERATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAMS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 7: At
least one full year prior to any major site construction, a preoperational 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 long-term effects.
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 8-
30/01: EFFLUENT CONTROL DURING OPERATIONS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following 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 source. Notwithstanding the
existence of individual dose standards, strict control of emissions is necessary to assure 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 from radon
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.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-57
Checks must be made and logged hourly of all parameters (e.g., differential pressures and
scrubber water flow rates) that determine the efficiency 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 efficiency; corrective
action must be taken when performance is outside of prescribed ranges. Effluent control devices
must be operative at all times during drying and packaging operations and whenever air is
exhausting from the yellowcake stack. Drying and packaging operations must terminate when
controls are inoperative. When checks indicate the equipment is not operating within the range
prescribed for peak efficiency, actions must be taken to restore parameters to the prescribed
range. When this cannot be done without shutdown and repairs, drying and packaging operations
must cease as soon as practicable. Operations may not be restarted after cessation due to off-
normal performance until needed corrective actions have been identified and implemented. All
these cessations, corrective 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 sheltered from
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 diffuse sources, such as tailings and ore pads where automatic controls do not 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 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.
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 Standards,
subpart C, Uranium, Radium, and Vanadium Ores Subcategory," as codified on January 1, 1983.
Relevant NRC Guidance
Gaseous and Airborne Particulate Materials
DG-3024, Section 4.1: Describe all ventilation, filtration, confinement, and dust
collection systems that are used during mill operations to control gaseous radioactive
materials. Include the type, specifications, and locations of such systems (e.g., ore
transfer points, crushing, grinding). Include an analysis of the efficiency of the equipment
as designed and operated to prevent radiation exposures to employees and members of
the public and to limit such exposures to as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA). In
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-58
addition, describe mill discharge stacks, including stack heights, types and concentration
of effluents discharged, and methods (e.g., scrubbers, filters) for controlling releases of
radioactive materials and for limiting such releases to ALARA levels. Provide minimum
performance specifications for filtration or scrubber efficiency and air flow for the
various mill ventilation, filtration, confinement, and dust collection systems. Provide the
frequency of tests and inspections to ensure that system performance specifications are
being met. Provide an assessment that demonstrates that the gaseous radioactive waste
management systems are capable of limiting exposures of employees and members of the
public to gaseous and airborne particulate material in compliance with the requirements
of 10 CFR Part 20, “Standards for Protection Against Radiation”.
Liquids and Solids
DG-3024, Section 4.2: Where retention systems (e.g., levees, dikes, ponds) are used to
prevent the release of liquid or solid wastes containing radioactive material to offsite
areas or site ground water bodies, provide the information specified in Regulatory Guide
3.11, “Design, Construction, and Inspection of Embankment Retention Systems at
Uranium Recovery Facilities” (Ref. 9), including a description of the planned program
for inservice inspection and surveillance of the waste retention systems. (Applicable
information concerning this subject, if provided in Section B.2 of this regulatory guide,
need not be repeated here.) Demonstrate that the retention system designs will satisfy the
ground water protection requirements of Criterion 5 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40.
If effluents are to be released into waters of the United States, discuss the status of efforts
to obtain a water quality certification under Section 401 and discharge permits under
Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended (Ref. 10), or
submit copies of these items if they are already issued.
Contaminated Equipment
DG-3024, Section 4.3: Describe the methods for disposing of contaminated waste solids
(e.g., filters, filter presses, obsolete or worn-out equipment) that are generated in the
milling process.
Sources of Mill Wastes and Effluents
RG 3.8, Section 3.4: Clearly identify the location of release points for all gaseous (include
stack heights), liquid, and solid wastes and effluents, including bulk storage locations, i.e.,
piles of ore or tailings or overburden dumps. Specify quantities, concentrations, and physical,
chemical, and radiological characteristics of all materials released. Average and maximum
release rates should be included plus all pertinent supporting information such as assumptions
and computational methods used. The quantities and concentrations of radioactive and
nonradioactive materials that will be released into the environs should be compared with
State and other applicable standards.
Suggested formats for supplying this material on radioactive emissions are included as
Appendix B of this guide. The tables supplied by the applicant should not be limited to
the examples listed, however.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-59
Controls of Mill Wastes and Effluents
RG 3.8, Section 3.5: Provide a description of mill waste and effluent control systems and
equipment for minimizing to as low as is reasonably achievable the quantities of
materials released into the environment. Identify the operating efficiency of such systems
and equipment in relation to current best methods for controlling milling wastes and
effluents. Also, identify the factors that affect these efficiencies, and describe the
operating practices to be pursued during the life of the proposed project.
For waste retention systems, a design analysis of the integrity of the proposed systems
should be provided. This should include:
1. Drawings showing the layout in plan, typical cross sections of all embankments
showing proposed design and, if applicable, anticipated future extensions, and other
pertinent design details. Embankment designs should include information on heights, top
width, side slopes, freeboard, seepage control, and protection of embankment surfaces as
well as foundation design. See Regulatory Guide 3.11, "Design, Construction, and
Inspection of Embankment Retention Systems for Uranium Mills."
2. The results of soil tests, geologic exploration, foundation materials stability
investigations, as well as characteristics of fill material and a description of the
construction methods and specifications.
Sanitary and Other Mill Waste Systems
RG 3.8, Section 3.6: Describe any other nonradioactive solid or liquid waste materials,
such as sanitary, laundry, and chemical laboratory wastes that may be generated during
operation. Describe the manner in which they will be treated and controlled, and describe
procedures for disposal.
Means for control and treatment of all systems subject to effluent limitation guidelines
and standards of performance under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA)
should be described.
The applicant should (a) describe any other airborne effluents (e.g., from diesel engines, gas
turbines, heating plants, incinerators) created during project operation, (b) estimate the
frequency of release and describe how they will be treated before release to the
environment, and (c) estimate the total quantity of pollutants to be discharged annually.
The radionuclide and chemical concentrations in the liquid and gaseous effluents discharged
from the site are listed. In this section, the applicant should consider how these effluents are
quantitatively distributed in the environment. Specifically, estimates should be provided for
the concentration (a) in any water sources, (b) on land areas, and (c) on vegetation (on a per
unit area basis) in the environs.
If there are other components of the physical environment that may become contaminated
and thus result in the exposure of living organisms to radiation, they should be identified and
their radioactivity burden estimated. In addition, information concerning any cumulative
buildup of radionuclides in the environment should be presented and discussed. A summary
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-60
of data, assumptions, and models used in determining radioactivity concentrations and
burdens should be provided.
From considerations of the exposure pathways and the distribution of radioactivity released
into the environs, the applicant should estimate the maximum radionuclide concentrations
that may be present in important local flora and local and migratory fauna. Values of
bioaccumulation factors used in preparing the estimates should be based on site-specific data
if available; otherwise, values from the literature may be used. The applicant should tabulate
and reference the values of bioaccumulation factors used in the calculations.
Effluents in the Environment
RG 3.8, Section 5.1.2: The radionuclide and chemical concentrations in the liquid and
gaseous effluents discharged from the site are listed. In this section, the applicant should
consider how these effluents are quantitatively distributed in the environment. Specifically,
estimates should be provided for the concentration (a) in any water sources, (b) on land
areas, and (c) on vegetation (on a per unit area basis) in the environs.
If there are other components of the physical environment that may become contaminated
and thus result in the exposure of living organisms to radiation, they should be identified and
their radioactivity burden estimated. In addition, information concerning any cumulative
buildup of radionuclides in the environment should be presented and discussed. A summary
of data, assumptions, and models used in determining radioactivity concentrations and
burdens should be provided.
From considerations of the exposure pathways and the distribution of radioactivity released
into the environs, the applicant should estimate the maximum radionuclide concentrations
that may be present in important local flora and local and migratory fauna. Values of
bioaccumulation factors used in preparing the estimates should be based on site-specific data
if available; otherwise, values from the literature may be used. The applicant should tabulate
and reference the values of bioaccumulation factors used in the calculations.
Effluent Control Techniques
DG-3024, Section 5.7.1: Describe the proposed systems and procedures designed to
minimize in-plant and environmental emissions at each step of the milling process where
releases might occur. Provide the minimum performance specifications (e.g., filtration or
scrubber efficiency and airflow) for operating the ventilation, filtration, and confinement
systems throughout the recovery plant and associated laboratories at their reasonably
expected best performance. In addition, provide the frequency of tests and inspections to
ensure that these specifications are being met. Include descriptions of the contingency
plans to be implemented in the event of equipment failures or spills.
External Radiation Exposure Monitoring Program
DG-3024, Section 5.7.2: Describe the proposed methods, instrumentation, and equipment
for determining exposures of employees to external radiation, in conformance with
Subpart C, “Occupational Dose Limits,” of 10 CFR Part 20, during routine and
nonroutine operations, maintenance, and cleanup activities. In addition, describe the type
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-61
of surveys to be conducted, criteria for determining survey locations, frequency of
surveys, action levels, management audits, and corrective action requirements. For
personnel monitoring devices, such as film badges, indicate the number and category of
personnel involved in the program and the sensitivity and range of the devices.
Airborne Radiation Monitoring Program
DG-3024, Section 5.7.3: Describe the proposed sampling program to determine
concentrations of airborne radioactive materials (including radon) during routine and
nonroutine operations, maintenance, and cleanup activities. (See 10 CFR 20.1204,
“Determination of Internal Exposure”; 10 CFR 20.1301, “Dose Limits for Individual
Members of the Public”; 10 CFR 20.1501, “General”; and 10 CFR 20.1502, “Conditions
Requiring Individual Monitoring of External and Internal Occupational Dose.”) In the
description of the sampling program, include the following:
• Criteria for determining sampling locations with respect to process operations
and personnel occupancy,
• Frequency of sampling,
• Type of analyses,
• Sensitivity of overall sampling and analyses,
• Action levels,
• Management audits,
• Corrective action requirements,
• Instrumentation calibration frequency, and
• Procedures for sample analyses and instrument calibration (in an appendix)
Exposure Calculations
DG-3024, Section 5.7.4: Consistent with the requirements of Subpart C of 10 CFR Part
20, describe the proposed procedure to determine the intake of radioactive materials by
personnel in work areas where airborne radioactive materials could exist. Include those
exposures incurred during nonroutine operations, maintenance, and cleanup activities as
well as during routine activities.
Bioassay Program
DG-3024, Section 5.7.5: Describe the proposed bioassay program to confirm the results
derived from the programs identified in subsections B.5.3 [sic] and B.5.4 [sic]. Indicate
the number and category of personnel involved in the program, the types and frequencies
of bioassays performed, and the action level criteria to be applied to bioassay results. (See
10 CFR 20.1204 and Subpart L, “Records,” of 10 CFR Part 20.)
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-62
Contamination Control Program
DG-3024, Section 5.7.6: Describe the proposed occupational radiation survey program to
determine that employees (plus their work clothes or coveralls and other items) entering
clean areas (e.g., lunchrooms, offices) or leaving the site are not contaminated with
radioactive materials. Include proposed housekeeping and cleanup requirements and
specifications in process areas to control contamination; frequency of surveys of clean
areas; survey methods; and minimum sensitivity, range, and calibration frequency of
survey equipment. Provide proposed contamination criteria or action levels for clean
areas and for the release of materials, equipment, and work clothes to clean areas or from
the site. Procedures for instrument calibration should be included in an appendix. (See 10
CFR 20.1101, “Radiation Protection Programs”; 10 CFR 20.1501; and 10 CFR 20.1702,
“Use of Other Controls.” See also subsection B.5.7.6 of NUREG-1569, “Standard
Review Plan for In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction Applications,” issued June 2003 (Ref.
13), for additional guidance on acceptable contamination control programs.)
Airborne Effluent and Environmental Monitoring Programs
DG-3024, Section 5.7.7: Describe in detail the proposed effluent and environmental
monitoring programs, including methods and procedures for measuring concentrations
and quantities of both radioactive and nonradioactive materials released to the environs.
In the description of the proposed monitoring programs, include the technical basis used
to determine environmental concentrations to show conformance with 10 CFR 20.1302,
“Compliance with Dose Limits for Individual Members of the Public,” and 10 CFR
20.1501.
For the frequency of sampling and analysis of both effluent and environmental
monitoring, provide the types and sensitivity of analysis, action levels and corrective
action requirements, and the minimum number and criteria for locating effluent and
environmental monitoring stations. Indicate proposed locations of the monitoring stations
on a topographic map of the site and surrounding area. (See Regulatory Guide 4.14,
“Radiological Effluent and Environmental Monitoring at Uranium Mills” (Ref. 14), in
connection with this section.).
Ground Water and Surface Water Monitoring Programs
DG-3024, Section 5.7.8: As required by Criterion 7A of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40,
describe the detection monitoring program to be used to determine if process effluents are
reaching site ground water supplies. In addition, describe the planned monitoring to
detect the presence of process effluents in any local surface waters. In this description,
provide the technical basis for the monitoring programs, including the number and
location of monitoring stations, the criteria used for locating sampling stations and
determining sampling frequency, and action levels and corrective action requirements.
The procedures for sample collection and analyses for the constituents of concern found
in tailings liquor should be provided in an appendix. In addition, another appendix should
be included to show a figure of the monitoring locations around the mill and surrounding
area.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-63
Control of Windblown Tailings and Ore
DG-3024, Section 5.7.9: Describe the interim stabilization measures (during milling
operations) to eliminate the blowing of tailings from the tailings retention system and ore
dust from ore piles. Also describe any means (e.g., curbs, drains, sumps) planned to
control the spread or seepage of fines from the ore pad and pile to adjacent soils as a
result of rainfall or thunderstorm events. Demonstrate that these contamination control
and stabilization measures will be adequate under potentially severe wind and weather
conditions at the mill site.
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION
8A-31/01: DAILY INSPECTIONS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following 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.
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 9-
32/01: FINANCIAL SURETY ARRANGEMENTS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 9:
Financial surety arrangements must be established by each mill operator prior to the
commencement of operations to assure that sufficient funds will be available to carry out the
decontamination and decommissioning of the mill and site and for the reclamation of any tailings
or waste disposal areas. The amount of funds to be ensured by such surety arrangements must be
based on Executive Secretary-approved cost estimates in a Executive Secretary-approved plan
for (1) decontamination and decommissioning of mill buildings and the milling site to levels
which allow unrestricted use of these areas upon decommissioning, and (2) the 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 long-term surveillance and control required by Criterion 10.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-64
In establishing specific surety arrangements, the licensee's cost estimates must take into account
total costs that would be incurred if an independent contractor were hired to perform the
decommissioning and reclamation work. In order to 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 such 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 site and associated areas, and the long-term funding charge
is clearly identified and committed for use in accomplishing these activities. The licensee's
surety mechanism will be reviewed annually by the Executive Secretary to assure, that sufficient
funds would be available for completion of the reclamation plan if the work had to be performed
by an independent contractor. 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 affecting costs. Regardless of whether reclamation is phased
through the life of the operation or takes place at the end of operations, an appropriate portion of
surety liability must be retained until final compliance with the reclamation plan is determined.
This will yield a surety that is at least sufficient at all times to cover the costs of
decommissioning and reclamation of the areas that are expected to be disturbed before the next
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
assurance would be provided with a surety instrument which is written for a specified period of
time (e.g., 5 years) yet which must be automatically renewed unless the surety notifies the
beneficiary (the 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 surety
requirement still exists and the licensee would be required to submit an acceptable replacement
surety 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 licensee
could 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 arrangements 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
(f) Combinations of the above or such other types of arrangements as may be approved by the
Executive 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
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-65
requirement since this provides no additional assurance other than that which already exists
through license requirements.
Relevant NRC Guidance
Financial Assurance
DG-3024, Section 8.3: Criterion 9 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 specifies that each
mill operator must establish financial surety arrangements before the commencement of
operations to ensure that sufficient funds will be available to carry out the
decontamination and decommissioning of the mill and site and for the reclamation of any
tailings or waste disposal areas. In the application, give sufficient information to verify
that the amount of coverage provided by a financial surety arrangement will permit the
completion of all decontamination, decommissioning, and reclamation of sites, structures,
and equipment used in the recovery and production of uranium and the concomitant
generation of byproduct material. Calculate the cost estimate on the basis of completion
of all activities by a third party. The surety must also cover the payment of the charge for
long-term surveillance and control of the site as required by Criterion 10 of Appendix A
to 10 CFR Part 40. (See Appendix C to NUREG-1620 for additional information on the
scope and content of the cost information to be submitted for financial assurance
purposes.)
RG 3.8, Chapter 9: Detailed discussions should be provided for the following:
1. Plans for reclaiming and restoring lands disturbed by mining and milling activities. These
plans should provide sufficient details for the staff to assess the suitability of these plans
when compared to other alternatives (e.g., horizontal-vertical slope, type of cover, sources
and thicknesses of cover materials, revegetation species, schedule of events from shutdown
through final reclamation).
2. A technical and financial feasibility assessment on methods and costs of mill
decommissioning and site reclamation, including tailings area.
3. Financial arrangements to be made (such as bonding arrangements) to ensure that
adequate funds will be available for mill decommissioning, site reclamation, and restoration
when operations are concluded.
Maintaining Financial Surety
NUREG-1620, Section 4.4.3(10): The licensee must maintain a financial surety, within the
specific license, for the cleanup of ground water, with the surety sufficient to recover the
anticipated cost and time frame for achieving compliance, before the land is transferred to
the long-term custodian. The financial surety must be sufficient to cover the cost of
corrective action measures that will have to be implemented if required to restore ground-
water quality to the established site-specific standards (including an alternate concentration
limit standard) before the site is transferred to the government for long-term custody.
Guidance on establishing financial surety is presented in NRC (1988, 1997). Appendix C to
this standard review plan provides an outline of the cost elements appropriate for
establishing surety amounts for conventional uranium mills. The financial surety review is
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-66
acceptable if the applicant’s assessment and any staff assessment of the surety amounts are
reasonably consistent.
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION
10-33/01: COSTS OF LONG-TERM SURVEILLANCE
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following 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 payment to recognize inflation. The inflation rate
to be used is that indicated by the change in the Consumer Price Index published by the U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B UAC R317-6-6.3-35/01: GROUND
WATER DISCHARGE PERMIT APPLICATION
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes UAC R317-6 in lieu of 10CFR40 Appendix A, Criterion 5B(1) thru 5H,
Criterion 7A, and Criterion 13. In turn, UAC R317-6-6.3 outlines the content requirements of a
State Ground Water Discharge Permit (Permit) application.
Unless otherwise determined by the Executive Secretary, the application for a permit to discharge
wastes or pollutants to ground water shall include the following complete information:
A. The name and address of the applicant and the name and address of the owner of the
facility if different than the applicant. A corporate application must be signed by an officer
of the corporation. The name and address of the contact, if different than above, and
telephone numbers for all listed names shall be included.
B. The legal location of the facility by county, quarter-quarter section, township, and range.
C. The name of the facility and the type of facility, including the expected facility life.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-67
D. A plat map showing all water wells, including the status and use 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 flow
direction, ground water quality, aquifer material, and well logs.
F. The type, source, and chemical, physical, radiological, and toxic characteristics of the
effluent or leachate to be discharged; the average and maximum daily amount of effluent or
leachate discharged (gpd), the discharge rate (gpm), and the expected concentrations of any
pollutant (mg/l) in each discharge or combination of discharges. If more than one discharge
point is used, information for each point must be given separately.
G. Information 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 surface
water quality standards, that the discharge is compatible 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 the
facility.
H. For areas where the ground water has not been classified by the Board, information on
the quality of the receiving ground water sufficient to determine the applicable protection
levels.
I. A proposed sampling and analysis monitoring plan which conforms to EPA Guidance for
Quality Assurance Project Plans, EPA QA/G-5 (EPA/600/R-98/018, February 1998) and
includes a description, where appropriate, of the following:
1. ground water monitoring to determine ground water flow 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,
including post-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
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-68
Standards on Ground Water and Vadose Investigations (1996), Practical Guide for
Ground Water Sampling EPA/600/2-85/104, (November 1985) and RCRA Ground
Water 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
thickness, flow direction, porosity, hydraulic conductivity, and flow systems characteristics.
L. The compliance sampling plan which in addition to the information specified in the above
item I includes, where appropriate, provisions for sampling of effluent 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 following
references unless otherwise specified by the Executive Secretary:
1. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, twentieth
edition, 1998; Library of Congress catalogue number: ISBN: 0-87553-235-7.
2. E.P.A. Methods, Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, 1983;
Stock Number EPA-600/4-79-020.
3. Techniques of Water Resource Investigations of the U.S. Geological Survey,
(1998); Book 9.
4. Monitoring requirements in 40 CFR parts 141 and 142, 2000 ed., Primary
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 the flooding potential of the discharge site, including the 100-year flood
plain, and any applicable flood protection measures.
N. Contingency plan for regaining and maintaining compliance with the permit 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.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-69
P. For any existing facility, a corrective action plan or identification of other response
measures to be taken to remedy any violation of applicable ground water quality standards,
class TDS limits or permit limit established under R317-6-6.4E. 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 performed under the
direction, and bear the seal, of a professional engineer or professional geologist.
S. A closure and post closure management plan demonstrating measures to prevent ground
water contamination during the closure and post closure phases of an operation.
Reference can be made to DG-3024 (e.g., Sections 3.1 through 3.3), NUREG-1620 (e.g., Sections
2.6.3 and 2.7.3), and RG 3.8 (e.g., Sections 1, 3.3, and 4.1) as appropriate for additional guidance on
topics listed above.
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B UAC R317-6-6.4-36/01: ISSUANCE OF
DISCHARGE PERMIT
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes UAC R317-6-6.4 in lieu of comparable requirements in 10CFR40:
A. The Executive Secretary may issue a ground water discharge permit for a new facility if the
Executive Secretary determines, after reviewing the information provided under R317-6-6.3,
that:
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;
2. the monitoring plan, sampling and reporting requirements are adequate to determine
compliance with applicable requirements;
3. the applicant is using best available technology to minimize the discharge of any
pollutant; and
4. there is no impairment of present and future beneficial uses of the ground water.
B. The Board mayapprove an alternate concentration limit for a new facility if:
1. The applicant submits a petition for an alternate concentration limit showing the extent to
which the discharge will exceed the applicable class TDS limits, ground water standards or
applicable protection levels and demonstrates that:
a. the facility is to be located in an area of Class III ground water;
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-70
b. the discharge plan incorporates the use of best available technology;
c. the alternate concentration limit is justified based on substantial overriding social
and economic benefits; and,
d. the discharge would pose no threat to human health and the environment.
2. One or more public hearings have been held by the Board in nearby communities to
solicit comment.
C. The Executive Secretary may issue a ground water discharge permit for an existing facility
provided:
1. the applicant demonstrates that the applicable class TDS limits, ground water quality
standards and protection levels will be met;
2. the monitoring plan, sampling and reporting requirements are adequate to determine
compliance with applicable requirements;
3. the applicant utilizes treatment and discharge minimization technology commensurate
with plant process design capability and similar or equivalent to that utilized by facilities
that produce similar products or services with similar production process technology;
and,
4. there is no current or anticipated impairment of present and future beneficial uses of the
ground water.
D. The Board may approve an alternate concentration limit for a pollutant in ground water at an
existing facility or facility permitted by rule under R317-6-6.2 if the applicant for a ground
water discharge permit shows the extent the discharge exceeds the applicable class TDS limits,
ground water quality standards and applicable protection levels that correspond to the otherwise
applicable ground water quality standards and demonstrates that:
1. steps are being taken to correct the source of contamination, including a program and
timetable for completion;
2. the pollution poses no threat to human health and the environment; and
3. the alternate concentration limit is justified based on overriding social and economic
benefits.
E. An alternate concentration limit, once adopted by the Board under R317-6-6.4B or R317-6-6.4D,
shall be the pertinent permit limit.
F. A facility permitted under this provision shall meet applicable class TDS limits, ground water
quality standards, protection levels and permit limits.
G. The Board may modify a permit for a new facility to reflect standards adopted as part of
corrective action.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-71
Relevant NRC Guidance
Reference can also be made to DG-3024, NUREG-1620 (e.g., Section 4.4.3), and RG 3.8 as
appropriate for additional guidance on topics listed above.
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B UAC R317-6-6.9-37/01: PERMIT
COMPLIANCE MONITORING
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes UAC R317-6-6.9 in lieu of comparable requirements in 10CFR40:
A. Ground Water Monitoring
The Executive Secretary may include in a ground water discharge permit requirements for ground
water monitoring, and may specify compliance monitoring points where the applicable class TDS
limits, ground water quality standards, protection levels or other permit limits are to be met.
The Executive Secretary will determine the location of the compliance monitoring point based upon
the hydrology, type of pollutants, and other factors that may affect 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. Performance Monitoring
The Executive Secretary may include in a ground water discharge permit requirements for
monitoring performance of best available technology standards.
Relevant NRC Guidance
Examination of the Compliance Monitoring Program
NUREG-1620, Section 4.3.3.4: The compliance monitoring program should monitor all
ground-water exposure pathways to assure that any potential exceedances of the proposed
alternate concentration limit will be detected before the license is terminated. The
compliance monitoring well locations should not be restricted solely to the point of
compliance. Some locations between the point of compliance and the points of exposure
should be included to assure the identified aquifer attenuation mechanisms are reducing
the hazardous constituent concentrations to the predicted levels. The applicable
maximum contaminant level, background concentration, or other maximum permissible
limit should be used as the compliance monitoring limit for wells at the points of
exposure, in those cases where compliance monitoring is conducted at the points of
exposure.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-72
Reference can also be made to DG-3024, NUREG-1620 (e.g., Section 4.4.3), and RG 3.8 as
appropriate for additional guidance on topics listed above.
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B UAC R317-6-6.10-38/01: BACKGROUND
WATER QUALITY DETERMINATION
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes UAC R317-6-6.10 in lieu of comparable requirements 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 from existing
information or from data collected by the permit applicant. Existing information shall be used, if 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 required for 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 fluctuations in concentrations. Applicable
up-gradient, and on-site ground water monitoring data shall be included in the ground water quality
permit monitoring report.
Relevant NRC Guidance
Reference can also be made to DG-3024, NUREG-1620 (e.g., Section 4.4.3), and RG 3.8 as
appropriate for additional guidance on topics listed above.
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B UAC R317-6-6.12-40/01: SUBMISSION
OF DATA
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes UAC R317-6-6.12 in lieu of comparable requirements in 10CFR40:
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.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-73
B. Field Analyses
All field analyses to determine compliance with these regulations shall be conducted in accordance
with standard procedures specified in R317-6-6.3.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.
Relevant NRC Guidance
Reference can be made to DG-3024, NUREG-1620 (e.g., Sections 4.1.3 and 4.4.3), and RG 3.8 as
appropriate for additional guidance on topics listed above.
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B UAC R317-6-6.13-41/01: REPORTING
OF MECHANICAL PROBLEMS OR DISCHARGE SYSTEM FAILURES
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes UAC R317-6-6.13 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 system failures that could affect the chemical characteristics or volume of
the discharge. A written statement confirming the oral report shall be submitted to the Executive
Secretary within five days of the failure.
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B UAC R317-6-6.10-42/01: CORRECTION
OF ADVERSE EFFECTS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes UAC R317-6-6.14 in lieu of comparable requirements in 10CFR40:
A. If monitoring or testing indicates that the permit conditions may be or are being violated by
ground water discharge operations or the facility is otherwise in an out-of-compliance status, the
permittee shall promptly make corrections to the system to correct all violations of the discharge
permit.
B. The permittee, operator, or owner may be required to take corrective action as described in
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-74
Relevant NRC Guidance:
Corrective Action
NUREG-1620, Section 4.3.3.3: The ground-water corrective action and compliance
monitoring plans are acceptable if they meet the following criteria.
(1) Sufficient data are available to adequately define relevant parameters and to support
models, assumptions, and boundary conditions necessary for developing detailed and
site-scale models of the ground-water cleanup and the estimation of cleanup time. The
data are also sufficient to assess the degree to which processes related to the ground-
water cleanup that affect compliance with the technical criteria in Appendix A of 10 CFR
Part 40 have been characterized. Information required for site-scale reactive transport
models can include:
(a) Site description.
(i) Chronology/history of uranium milling operations.
(ii) List of known leaching solutions and other chemicals used in the milling
process.
(iii) Summary of known impacts of the site activities on the hydrologic system
and background water quality.
(iv) Quantity and chemical/textural characteristics of wastes generated at the mill
site.
(v) Information pertaining to surrounding land and water uses.
(vi) Meteorological data for the region including precipitation and other data to
support estimates of evapotranspiration.
(b) Description of hydrogeologic units.
(i) Hydrostratigraphic cross sections/maps.
(ii) Hydrogeologic units that constitute the aquifer(s).
(iii) Description of perched aquifers (areal/volumetric extent).
(iv) Description of the unsaturated zone (thickness, extent).
(v) Geologic characteristics (presence of layers, continuity, faults).
(c) Data on the hydraulic and transport properties of each aquifer. Protecting Water
Resources
(i) Hydraulic conductivity.
(ii) Thickness of each unit.
(iii) Hydraulic head contour maps (of each aquifer).
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-75
(iv) Information on background horizontal and vertical hydraulic gradients and
temporal variations to determine flow directions.
(v) Vertical hydraulic gradients and inter-aquifer flow within and between
multiple aquifer systems.
(vi) Effective porosity
(vii) Storativity or specific yield (for transient simulations).
(viii) Longitudinal, vertical and horizontal transverse dispersivity.
(ix) Retardation factors.
(c) Data on regional recharge rates and ground-water/surface-water interactions with
nearby streams, rivers, or lakes.
(i) Areal recharge rates.
(ii) Information on water fluxes to and from rivers, aquifers, and surface water
bodies.
(iii) Data on surface water bodies (e.g., stream flow rates, dimensions of nearby
surface water bodies).
(iv) Concentration of hazardous constituents in surface water bodies
(d) Characteristics of the mill tailings.
(i) Identification of contaminant source terms.
(ii) Hydraulic properties of mill tailings material.
(iii) Unsaturated flow and transport parameters of mill tailings material.
(iv) Design and materials for mill tailings cover.
(v) Information on the spatial and temporal distribution of seepage fluxes from the
mill tailings to the upper-most aquifer (including the historical variation in rates).
(vi) Information on mill tailings draining mechanisms and drainage volume.
Protecting Water Resources 4-44
(vii) Geotechnical properties of the mill tailings and their temporal variation due
to drainage of leachates
(viii) Tailings volume.
(ix) Data on the volume, chemical and mineralogical characteristics, and
concentration of mill tailings and tailings solution/leachate.
(x) Mass of hazardous constituents placed in the tailings pile and other disposal or
storage areas.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-76
(e) Data on geochemical conditions and water quality.
(i) Concentration of hazardous constituents.
(ii) Background (baseline) ground-water quality.
(iii) Delineation of the nature and extent of the hazardous constituent plume.
(iv) Characterization of subsurface geochemical properties.
(v) Identification of attenuation mechanisms and estimation of attenuation rates.
(vi) Mass of hazardous constituents in the aquifer.
(f) Site cleanup data.
(i) Information on grout curtains, slurry walls, drains, interceptor ditches, and
other facilities designed to reduce the spreading of the hazardous constituent
plume (if used).
(ii) Information on pumping, injection, and sampling wells (coordinates, depths,
completion diagrams, flow rates).
(iii) Pumping/injection rates and rate history for each well (if pumping has been
ongoing).
(iv) Information on the presence or the absence of liners for the mill tailings pile
and evaporation ponds.
(v) Mass of hazardous constituents recovered to date.
Sufficient data are available to justify models used to validate the ground-water
corrective action plan. American Standard for Testing and Materials D 5490 provides
acceptable guidance for comparing model simulations to site-specific information.
Alternatively, in the case of sparse data and/or low confidence in the quality of available
data or data interpretations, the licensee demonstrates by sensitivity analyses or other
methods that the proposed ground-water corrective action plan is appropriate, and the
contingency built into the surety is compatible with the uncertainties. American Standard
for Testing and Materials D 5611 provides acceptable guidance for conducting sensitivity
analyses on ground-water flow models. Guidance on preparing cost estimates and
establishing sureties for uranium mills is provided in the “Technical Position on Financial
Assurances and Reclamation, Decommissioning, and Long-Term Surveillance and
Control of Uranium Recovery Facilities” (NRC, 1988).
Sufficient information is provided to substantiate that any mathematical flow and
transport modeling approach is appropriate for site conditions considering (i) factors
pertaining to the specific purpose or intended use of the model(s); (ii) the flow media at
the site and along the flow path from the mill tailings to the point of compliance, and
downgradient to it, including aquifer properties and transport parameters (e.g., porous
media versus fracture flow, aquifer confinement, the number of active layers); (iii)
modeling assumptions (e.g., steady-state versus transient flow, assignment of initial and
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-77
boundary conditions); and (iv) model-related factors (e.g., underlying flow equations;
solution methods; model history; model verification, validation and calibration; expertise
and experience of the personnel responsible for model development; and quality of model
documentation). American Standard for Testing and Materials D 5718 provides guidance
for documenting ground-water flow model applications.
An adequate assessment is provided of the low and high permeability features
(heterogeneities), their spatial distributions, and statistical properties; and the available
and acquired data are suitable and sufficient for modeling based on observations,
independent analyses, or published reports and databases of those features.
Initial and boundary conditions used by the licensee in modeling the ground-water
cleanup are justified by the available data, are used consistently throughout the modeling
process, and are adequately documented. American Standard for Testing and Materials D
5609 provides acceptable guidance for defining boundary conditions for ground-water
flow models.
Where sufficient data do not exist, the definition of parameter values and conceptual
models are based on appropriate sources from the literature or are otherwise technically
justified.
Adequate site geochemical data are provided. Contaminants are identified sufficiently to
support the ground-water corrective action plan and models. In addition to helping set
cleanup goals, background water chemical data support assessments of geochemical
evolution as ambient ground water is restored in the subsurface.
Generally, a three-dimensional delineation of contaminant distribution and a source term
are necessary for defining needed actions and for model development. The important
geochemical parameters that should be delineated for both contaminated and background
waters are pH, Eh, dissolved oxygen, temperature, major cation and anion concentrations,
and concentrations of potential contaminants. Host rock properties affect both the water
chemistry and the specific geochemical mechanisms affecting contaminants. Identifying
possible attenuation mechanisms ensures that cleanup is based on reasonable models for
contaminant transport.
(2) Parameter values, assumed ranges, probability distributions, and/or bounding
assumptions used in the modeling of ground-water cleanup are technically defensible and
reasonably account for uncertainties and variabilities. The technical bases for each
parameter value, ranges of values, or probability distributions used in the modeling of the
ground-water cleanup are provided.
Sensitivity analyses are provided that (i) identify aquifer flow and transport parameters
that are expected to significantly affect the site model outcome; (ii) test the degree to
which the performance of the ground-water cleanup may be affected if a range of
parameter values must be used as input to the model due to sparsity of, or uncertainty in,
available data; and (iii) test for the need for additional data.
Sufficient bases are provided for parameter values, representative parameter values are
taken from the literature, and the bounds and statistical distributions are provided for
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-78
hydrologic and transport parameters that are important to the estimation of cleanup time
and that are included in the modeling of the ground-water cleanup.
Site data fitted to theoretical models compare reasonably well. American Standard for
Testing and Materials D 5490 provides guidance for comparing ground-water flow model
simulations to site-specific information. If there is departure of site data from the
theoretical model, then an alternate model is considered. The assumptions used in
modeling are consistent with site data and observations.
Models used to describe local phenomena, such as the fluxes through the tailings pile, are
based on consistently applied conditions.
(3) Important design features, physical phenomena, and consistent and appropriate
assumptions are identified and described sufficiently for incorporation into any modeling
that supports the ground-water cleanup, including the estimate of cleanup time, and the
technical bases are provided. Detailed models and site-scale models used to support the
corrective action plan, or other supporting documents, and identify and describe aspects
that are important to the cleanup and the estimate of cleanup time.
The licensee delineates the extent of the hazardous constituent plume, contaminant flow
paths in the aquifer considering natural site conditions, any effects that can be expected to
result from construction of additional facilities and operations (i.e., tailings ponds,
evaporation ponds, excavations), and events that may affect the spatial and temporal
distribution of the hazardous constituent plume. More specifically, the licensee’s models
of the ground-water cleanup consider and are consistent with (i) natural climatic,
geologic, and hydrologic conditions at the site and in the vicinity of the site; (ii) tailings
pile design and construction features and their potential impact on local recharge and
consequent flow paths in the aquifer; (iii) geochemical and other processes that can affect
the performance of the ground-water cleanup and estimation of cleanup time; and (iv)
future events, including additional construction and changes of plans for operations that
may occur at the site. The licensee also has determined the range of concentrations of
hazardous constituents that can be expected in the aquifer and their changes with time
during the ground-water cleanup.
The licensee estimates the total mass of hazardous constituents produced by the leaching
process and the quantity of the mass that is in the mill tailings, the aquifer, in surface
water bodies (including evaporation ponds, disposal cells, nearby ponds, and rivers) and
the portion that has been removed by means of the ground-water cleanup, and accounts
for the mass that will be removed for final disposal.
The licensee makes reasonable assumptions, if taking credit for dispersion of hazardous
constituents and consequent reduction of concentrations during transport from the mill
tailings to the point of compliance, for such processes as mechanical dispersion and
mixing with native ground water and surface water. These assumptions are based on
available data about the hydraulic and transport properties of the site and the spatial
variations of properties of aquifers and ground-water volumetric fluxes along the flow
paths.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-79
The licensee provides an adequate basis for considering the effect of any reactive
transport and geochemical processes in simulating the ground-water cleanup operation, if
taking credit for sorption or any other geochemical reaction of hazardous constituents and
consequent reduction or retardation of concentrations during transport from the mill
tailings. Predicting the effects of proposed ground-water cleanup actions may include
forward, site-specific contaminant transport modeling. Often, such modeling has taken a
simple approach employing a retardation factor to describe all geochemical effects on
contaminant concentration. This approach may be too simplistic. The use of a constant
retardation factor and the neglect of speciation and water-mineral reactions is likely to
lead to prediction errors. Reactive transport models using codes such as PHREEQC
Version 2 (Parkhurst and Appello, 1999) are acceptable for constructing a geochemical
model for the site. Hostetler and Erickson (1993) discuss examples of the effect of
extending reactive transport models beyond simply including retardation in advective-
dispersive models. In one example involving cadmium transport at a uranium mill
tailings site, concentration profiles from the site suggest the importance of otavite
(CdCO3) solubility control on aqueous cadmium in the low-pH zones near the tailings
pond, and the inadequacy of modeling sorption alone.
Reactive transport models incorporate thermodynamic data on solid phases and aqueous
species, allowing the mass action calculations that determine estimated aqueous
concentrations and solid phase evolution. Thermodynamic parameters constitute a major
source of uncertainty in geochemical modeling [see Murphy and Shock (1999) for a
discussion of uranium], with potentially large effects on predicted aqueous ion
concentrations. Therefore, geochemical modeling supporting ground-water corrective
action plans includes sensitivity analyses that provide assurance that contaminant
concentrations will not be underestimated. Likewise, any kinetic models employed are
subjected to critical analysis because of the large influence of kinetic effects at low
temperatures.
Reactive transport model results are subject to the assumptions and limitations of the
conceptual and numerical models employed. For example, Zhu et al.4 list model
limitations and briefly discuss how they may affect predictions. Geochemical limitations
include:
(a) The assumption of local equilibrium (i.e., kinetic rates were not employed).
(b) Modeled porosity not being affected by reactions affecting the solid phase.
(c) Omitting colloidal transport.
(d) Neglecting density effects due to varying total dissolved solids.
(e) Simplifying the mineralogical suite.
(f) Neglecting surface reactions such as ion exchange.
(g) Relying on bulk mineralogy rather than on mineral surface compositions.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-80
Limitations such as these are typically due to factors such as lack of data, inadequate
computational equipment, or insufficient model development. Consideration of model
limitations and their effects on uncertainty is an important component of the review by
the NRC.
The numerical model of the site constructed by the licensee incorporates site-specific
information, is adequately validated and calibrated, and reasonably represents the
physical system. American Standard for Testing and Materials Reports D 5490 and D
5981 provide guidance for ground-water flow model validation and calibration. The
professional experience and judgment of the reviewer should be applied in assessing
these aspects of the analyses.
The licensee identifies and properly integrates factors that are expected to affect, or that
are affected by, the ground-water cleanup. These include, but are not limited to, the
spatial and temporal variation of the flux of leachates from the mill tailings to the
underlying aquifer, drainage mechanisms of leachates from the mill tailings, spatial
variability in flow and transport properties of the aquifer underlying the mill tailings, and
geochemical processes that may affect the concentrations of hazardous constituents.
The licensee evaluates and documents the degree of conservatism in modeling the
ground-water cleanup, and the level of conservatism presumed by the licensee is
commensurate with the data and conceptual model uncertainty.
(4) Alternate modeling approaches consistent with available data and current scientific
understanding are investigated where necessary, and results and limitations are
appropriately factored into the ground-water corrective action plan. The licensee provides
sufficient evidence that relevant site features have been considered, that the models are
consistent with available data and current scientific understanding, and that the effects on
cleanup time have been evaluated. Specifically, the licensee adequately considers
alternate modeling approaches where necessary to incorporate uncertainties in site
parameters and ensure they are propagated through the modeling.
Uncertainty in data interpretations is considered by analyzing reasonable conceptual
models that are supported by site data, or by demonstrating through sensitivity studies
that the uncertainties have little impact on the ground-water corrective action plan.
(5) The site-scale model for ground-water cleanup provides results consistent with the
output of detailed or site data. Specifically, the site model is consistent with detailed
models of geological, hydrological, and geochemical processes for the site. For example,
for flow and transport through the aquifer, hydraulic conductivity distributions are
reasonably consistent with sensitivity studies of the range of hydraulic conductivities and
varying statistical distributions, field observations, and laboratory tests, when applicable.
The licensee documents how the model output is validated in relation to site
characteristics.
Where appropriate, in developing the site model for ground-water cleanup, the licensee
considers and evaluates alternate models that are reasonably justified by the available
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-81
database, with reasonable values assigned to distribution statistics to compensate for
limited data availability.
The licensee uses numerical and analytical modeling approaches reflecting varying
degrees of complexity consistent with information obtained from site characterization.
The licensee employs the upper and lower bounds of input parameter ranges to examine
the robustness of the modeling.
(6) Adequate waste management practices are defined.
The disposition of effluent generated during active remediation is addressed in the
corrective action plan. Appendix F to this standard review plan contains NRC staff policy
for effluent disposal at licensed uranium recovery facilities for conventional mills. When
retention systems such as evaporation ponds are used, design considerations from erosion
protection and stability along with construction plans reviewed by a qualified engineer
are included. Evaporation and retention ponds should meet the design requirements of 10
CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5A. Ideally, the ponds should have leak detection
systems capable of reliably detecting a leak from the pond into the ground water and
should be located where they will not impede the timely surface reclamation of the
tailings impoundment.
If water is to be treated and reinjected, either into an upper aquifer or into a deep disposal
well, the injection program is approved by the appropriate State or Federal authority. For
release of this waste to surface waters, existing licensees must meet the requirements of
10 CFR 20.1302(b)(2), and should demonstrate that doses are maintained as low as
reasonably achievable (ALARA). NRC has no specific requirements for non-radiological
constituents, and may adopt the appropriate State limits. Anticipated discharge must be
described in enough detail to evaluate environmental impacts. Appropriate State and
Federal agency permits should be obtained in accordance with 10 CFR 20.2007.
(7) Appropriate site access control is provided by the licensee.
Site access control should be provided by the licensee until site closure to protect human
health and the environment from potential harm. Site access is controlled by limiting
access to the site with a fence and by conducting periodic inspections of the site.
(8) Effective corrective action and compliance monitoring programs are provided.
Licensees are required, by Criterion 7 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40, to implement
corrective action and compliance monitoring programs. The licensee monitoring
programs are adequate to evaluate the effectiveness of ground-water cleanup and control
activities, and to monitor compliance with ground-water cleanup standards. The
description of the monitoring program includes or references the following information:
(a) Quality assurance procedures used for collecting, handling, and analyzing ground-
water samples.
(b) The number of monitor wells and their locations.
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-82
(c) A list of constituents that are sampled and the monitoring frequency for each
monitored constituent.
(d) Action levels that trigger implementation of enhanced monitoring or revisions to
cleanup activities (i.e., timeliness and effectiveness of the corrective action).
For corrective action monitoring:
The same wells used to determine the nature and extent of contamination may be used to
monitor the progress of ground-water corrective action activities. However, once the
extent of contamination is delineated, it may be possible to adequately monitor
compliance with fewer wells. Once selected, major changes to monitored locations are
avoided, because it is important to be able to directly compare measurements made at
different times.
Licensees choose a monitoring interval that is appropriate for monitoring corrective
action progress. Not all hazardous constituents need to be monitored at each interval. It is
generally acceptable for licensees to choose a list of more easily measured constituents
that serve as good indicators of performance.
These indicators include conservative constituents that are less likely to be attenuated,
such as chloride, total dissolved solids, and alkalinity. However, if a hazardous
constituent is causing a demonstrated risk to human health or the environment, that
constituent must be monitored during the corrective action. Ground water at designated
monitor wells is sampled for all hazardous constituents at the end of each major phase of
corrective action and again before license termination and transfer of the site to the
custodial agency for long-term custody.
For compliance monitoring, after a corrective action program has been terminated,
compliance monitoring at the point of compliance will resume for the duration of the
compliance period, until license termination, as defined in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A,
Criterion 7A.
(9) Design of Surface Impoundments.
The reviewer should verify that any impoundment built as part of the corrective action
program to contain wastes is acceptably designed, constructed, and installed. The design,
installation, and operation of these surface impoundments must meet relevant guidance in
Regulatory Guide 3.11, Section 1 (NRC 1977). Materials used to construct the liner
should be reviewed to determine that they have acceptable chemical properties and
sufficient strength for the design application. The reviewer should confirm that the liner
will not be overtopped. The reviewer should also confirm that a proper quality control
program is in place.
The review should ensure that the applicable requirements of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix
A, Criterion 5(A) have been met. If the waste water retention impoundments are located
below grade, the reviewer should determine that the surface impoundments have an
acceptable liner to ensure protection of ground water. The location of a surface
impoundment below grade will eliminate the likelihood of embankment failure that could
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-83
result in release of waste water. The reviewer should determine that the design of
associated dikes is such that they will not experience massive failure.
The design of a clay or synthetic liner and its component parts should be presented. At a
minimum, design details, drawings, and pertinent analyses should be provided. Expected
construction methods, testing criteria, and quality assurance programs should be
presented. Planned modes of operation, inspection, and maintenance should be discussed
in the application. Deviations from these plans should be submitted to the staff for
approval before implementation.
The liner for a surface impoundment used to manage uranium and thorium byproduct
material must be designed, constructed, and installed to prevent any migration of wastes
out of the impoundment to the subsurface soil, ground water, or surface water at any time
during the active life of the surface impoundment. The liner may be constructed of
materials that allow wastes to migrate into the liner provided that the impoundment
decommissioning includes removal or decontamination of all waste residues,
contaminated containment system components, contaminated subsoils, and structures and
equipment contaminated with waste and leachate.
The liner must be constructed of materials that have appropriate chemical properties and
sufficient strength and thickness to prevent failure caused by pressure gradients, physical
contact with the waste or leachate, climatic conditions, and the stresses of installation and
daily operation. The subgrade must be sufficient to prevent failure of the liner caused by
settlement, compression, or uplift. Liners must be installed to cover all surrounding earth
that is likely to be in contact with the wastes or leachate.
Tests should show conclusively that the liner will not deteriorate when subjected to the
waste products and expected environmental and temperature conditions at the site.
Applicant test data and all available manufacturers test data should be submitted with the
application for this purpose. For clay liners, tests, at a minimum, should consist of falling
head permeameter tests performed on columns of liner material obtained during and after
liner installation. The expected reaction of the impoundment liner to any combination of
solutions or environmental conditions should be known before the liner is exposed to
them. Field seams of synthetic liners should be tested along the entire length of the seam.
Representative sampling may be used for factory seams. The testing should use state-of-
the-art test methods recommended by the liner manufacturer. Compatibility tests that
document the compatibility of the field seam material with the waste products and
expected environmental conditions should be submitted for staff review and approval. If
it is necessary to repair the liner, representatives of the liner manufacturer should be
called on to supervise the repairs.
Proper preparation of the subgrade and slopes of an impoundment is very important to the
success of the surface impoundment. The strength of the liner is heavily dependent on the
stability of the slopes of the subgrade. The subgrade should be treated with a soil
sterilant. The subgrade surface for a synthetic liner should be graded to a surface
tolerance of less than 2.54 cm [1 in.] across a 30.3-cm [1-ft] straightedge. NRC
Regulatory Guide 3.11, Section 2 (NRC, 1977) outlines acceptable methods for slope
stability and settlement analyses, and should be used for design. If a surface
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-84
impoundment with a synthetic liner is located in an area in which the water table could
rise above the bottom of the liner, underdrains may be required. The impoundment will
be inspected in accordance with Regulatory Guide 3.11.1 (NRC, 1980).
To prevent damage to liners, some form of protection should be provided, such as (a) soil
covers, (b) venting systems, (c) diversion ditches, (d) side slope protection, or (e) game-
proof fences. A program for maintenance of the liner features should be developed, and
repair techniques should be planned in advance. The surface impoundment must have
sufficient capacity and must be designed, constructed, maintained, and operated to
prevent overtopping resulting from (a) normal or abnormal operations, overfilling, wind
and wave actions, rainfall, or run-on; (b) malfunctions of level controllers, alarms, and
other equipment; and (c) human error. If dikes are used to form the surface impoundment,
they must be designed, constructed, and maintained with sufficient structural integrity to
prevent their massive failure. In ensuring structural integrity, the applicant must not
assume that the liner system will function without leakage during the active life of the
impoundment. Controls should be established over access to the impoundment, including
access during routine maintenance. A procedure should be developed that ensures
unnecessary traffic is not directed to the impoundment area. A program should be
established to ensure that daily inspections of tailings or waste impoundment systems are
conducted and recorded and that failures or unusual conditions are reported to the NRC.
In addition, the reviewer should evaluate the proposed surface impoundment to determine
if it meets the definition of a dam as given in Regulatory Guide 3.11 (NRC, 1977). If this
is the case, the surface impoundment should be included in the NRC dam safety program,
and be subject to Section 215, “National Dam Safety Program,” of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996. If the reviewer finds that the impoundment conforms to the
definition of a dam, the dam ranking (low or high hazard) should be evaluated. If the dam
is considered a high hazard, an emergency action plan is needed consistent with Federal
Emergency Management Agency requirements. For low hazard dams, no emergency
action plan is required. For either ranking of dam, the reviewer should also verify that the
licensee has an acceptable inspection program in place to ensure that the dikes are
routinely checked, and that performance is properly maintained.
A quality control program should be established for the following factors: (a) clearing,
grubbing, and stripping; (b) excavation and backfill; (c) rolling; (d) compaction and
moisture control; (e) finishing; (f) subgrade sterilization; and (g) liner subdrainage and
gas venting.
(10) Financial Surety Is Provided.
The licensee must maintain a financial surety, within the specific license, for the cleanup
of ground water, with the surety sufficient to recover the anticipated cost and time frame
for achieving compliance, before the land is transferred to the long-term custodian. The
financial surety must be sufficient to cover the cost of corrective action measures that will
have to be implemented if required to restore ground-water quality to the established site-
specific standards (including an alternate concentration limit standard) before the site is
transferred to the government for long-term custody. Guidance on establishing financial
surety is presented in NRC (1988, 1997). Appendix C to this standard review plan
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-85
provides an outline of the cost elements appropriate for establishing surety amounts for
conventional uranium mills. The financial surety review is acceptable if the applicant’s
assessment and any staff assessment of the surety amounts are reasonably consistent.
Reference can also be made to DG-3024, NUREG-1620 (e.g., Section 4.4.3), and RG 3.8 as
appropriate for additional guidance on topics listed above.
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B UAC R317-6-6.10-43/01: OUT-OF-
COMPLIANCE STATUS
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes UAC R317-6-6.16 in lieu of comparable requirements in 10CFR40:
A. Accelerated Monitoring for Probable Out-of-Compliance Status
If the value of a single analysis of any compliance parameter in any compliance monitoring sample
exceeds an applicable permit limit, the facility shall:
1. Notify the Executive Secretary in writing within 30 days of receipt of data;
2. Immediately initiate monthly sampling if the value exceeds both the background
concentration of the pollutant by two standard deviations and an applicable permit limit,
unless the Executive Secretary determines that other periodic sampling is appropriate, for a
period of two months or until the compliance status of the facility can be determined.
B. Violation of Permit Limits
Out-of-compliance status exists when:
1. The value for two consecutive samples from a compliance monitoring point exceeds:
a. one or more permit limits; and
b. the background concentration for that pollutant by two standard deviations (the
standard deviation and background (mean) being calculated using values for the
ground water pollutant at that compliance monitoring point) unless the existing
permit limit was derived from the background pollutant concentration plus two
standard deviations; or
2. The concentration value of any pollutant in two or more consecutive samples is
statistically significantly higher than the applicable permit limit. The statistical significance
shall be determined using the statistical methods described in Statistical Methods for
Evaluating Ground Water Monitoring Data from Hazardous Waste Facilities, Vol. 53, No.
196 of the Federal Register, Oct. 11, 1988 and supplemental guidance in Guidance For Data
Quality Assessment (EPA/600/R-96/084 January 1998).
C. Failure to Maintain Best Available Technology Required by Permit
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-86
1. Permittee to Provide Information
In the event that the permittee fails to maintain best available technology or otherwise fails
to meet best available technology standards as required by the permit, the permittee shall
submit to the Executive Secretary a notification and description of the failure according to
R317-6-6.13. Notification shall be given orally within 24 hours of the permittee's discovery
of the failure of best available technology, and shall be followed up by written notification,
including the information necessary to make a determination under R317-6-6.16.C.2, within
five days of the permittee's discovery of the failure of best available technology.
Relevant NRC Guidance
Reference can also be made to DG-3024, NUREG-1620 (e.g., Section 4.4.3), and RG 3.8 as
appropriate for additional guidance on topics listed above.
INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA CELL 4B UAC R317-6-6.10-44/01: PROCEDURE
WHEN A FACILITY IS OUT-OF-COMPLIANCE
REGULATORY BASIS:
UAC R313-24-4 invokes UAC R317-6-6.17 in lieu of comparable requirements in 10CFR40:
A. If a facility is out of compliance the following is required:
1. The permittee shall notify the Executive Secretary of the out of compliance status within
24 hours after detection of that status, followed by a written notice within 5 days of the
detection.
2. The permittee shall initiate monthly sampling, unless the Executive Secretary determines
that other periodic sampling is appropriate, until the facility is brought into compliance.
3. The 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 technology 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 BAT for approval by the Executive Secretary.
Relevant NRC Guidance
Cell 4B Environmental Report and License Amendment Request
Appendix A

A-87
Reference can also be made to DG-3024, NUREG-1620 (e.g., Section 4.4.3), and RG 3.8 as
appropriate for additional guidance on topics listed above.