HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRC-2010-001805 - 0901a06880361a2cSonja Robinson - January 19, 2009 Meeting Minutes
Ef.v••ise-.s?: SEE- F.-j
Page 1 of 1
C-2010-00180§
From: David Frydenlund <DFrydenlund(gdenisonmines.com>
To: Loren Morton <lmorton(@utah.gov>
Date: 1/22/2010 3:24 PM
Subject: January 19, 2009 Meeting Minutes
CC: "Robert_D_Baird(gURSCorp.com" <Robert_D_Baird@URSCorp.com>,
"drupp(gutah.gov" <drupp(gutah.gov>, "Jon_Luellen(^URSCorp.com"
<Jon_Luellen@URSCorp.com>, "Janet_Redden(gURSCorp.com"
<Janet_Redden(gURSCorp.com>, Harold Roberts <HRoberts(@denisonmines.com>
Attachments: MtgNotes 100119 (2)Denison Comments.doc
Loren,
Attached are your draft meeting notes, marked to show our suggested comments.
Dave
David Frydenlund
Vice President. Regulatory Affairs and Counsel
t: (303) 389-4130 | f: (303) 389-4125
1050 17th street. Suite 950, Denver, CO 80265
DENISON MINES (USA) CORP
www.denisonmines.com
This e-mail is intended for exclusive use the person(s) mentioned as the recipient(s). This message and any attached files with it are confidential and may contain
privileged or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient(s) 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).
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Sdrobinson\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4B61 CA41E... 2/4/2010
Memo
Page 1 of 19
MEETING NOTES
Participants Dave Frydenlund, DUSA
Harold Roberts, DUSA
Loren Morton, UDRC
John Hultquist, UDRC
Dave Rupp, UDRC
Jon Luellen, URS (via telephone)
Jennifer Kelly, URS (via telephone)
Robert Baird, URS
Location: UDRC Offices, Room 205, 168 N 1950 West, SLC, UT
Date & Time: January 19, 2010; 10:00 AM to 1:30 PM MST
Topic Tailings Cell 4B Environmental Report; Round 1 Interrogatory Responses
Meeting agenda is included as Attachment 1.
Mr. Roberts discussed DUSA’s construction schedule, explaining that approximately 4 months
are required to install the liner system. Weather compatible with construction activities prevails
dependably from May through August. Though less dependable, weather in April, September, is
often compatible with construction activities. October is unlikely to be compatible.
Mr. Frydenlund stated DUSA’s judgment that many of the Round 1 interrogatory questions
pertain more to initial submittal of a license application or a license renewal application. He
asserted that the focus of the analysis should be on issues related to the Cell 4B amendment
request and not on Mill activities generally, which have already been licensed.
Mr.Baird described the process URS used to develop interrogatories for UDRC. URS included
some issues it considered borderline, expecting that UDRC would review and either concur or
disagree about the propriety of including such issues. As, UDRC responded to DUSA’s request
that UDRC deliver interrogatories ASAP, the opportunity for UDRC review was lost, leaving
DUSA with the opportunity to state its judgment about questions it considered inappropriate in
UDRC’s review of the Cell 4B Environmental Report.
Regarding the many “To Be Determined (TBD)” issues identified in the DRC Round 1
Interrogatory, Mr. Roberts explained that DUSA did not to address any of them because UDRC
asked no question. Mr. Morton stated his expectation that DUSA would have addressed all of
the TBD entries, but acknowledged that his expectations may not have been evident given that
specific questions were not asked. Mr. Baird explained his understanding that these were left in
the Round 1 interrogatories to preserve the opportunity to pursue issues UDRC considered
important. All parties agreed to review and discuss the TBD issues at the end of the meeting.
Deleted: only
Deleted: directly
Deleted: are appropriate for UDRC’s
consideration.
Deleted: chose
Deleted: disappointment in DUSA’s
actions in this regard
Memo
Page 2 of 19
Mr. Luellen reviewed the issues URS is intending to pursue in Round 2:
• DUSA Round 1 Response §2.2.2: URS will request justification for providing data only
out to 5 miles rather than 10 miles as recommended in NRC regulatory guidance; DUSA
stated that the water rights information was more complete in the Reclamation Plan, Rev.
4.0 and can improve the response to be equivalent. URS will request justification for the
“no changes are expected to occur ” assertion with respect to projected changes in
surface water and groundwater use in the area surrounding the Mill. DUSA should cite in
the response by referring to local demographic, economic, and similar indicators,
description of Mill Property ownership area as a buffer, any DUSA development plans in
the buffer area and the likelihood for Tribal development of the shallow and deep
confined aquifers at a location to the south (downgradient), etc for a period of 200 to
1,000 years…; The code to abbreviations and symbols used in Response Table 2.2.2-1 is
included in §1.5.6 of Revision 4.0 of the Reclamation Plan;
DUSA stated that well logs for two wells that preexisted DUSA’s (and its predecessor
organizations’) purchase of the site have been sought in previous UDRC/DUSA
investigations and found not to exist. DUSA agreed to re-visit this previous DRC /
DUSA correspondence, and include as applicable. URS requested that copies of well
logs (driller’s logs) be provided for any privately-owned water well located within 1 mile
of discharge locations as per R317-06. DUSA stated that the 2009 DRC Statement of
Basis for the revised groundwater discharge permit (Permit) concludes questions about
availability of well logs. URS will verify.
• DUSA Round 1 Response §2.2.3: Data on pH observations in surface water and
groundwater after 1978 were not found in the reference table summarizing surface water
quality data provided in the Reclamation Plan (Revision 4.0); DUSA explained that such
information is provided in the semi-Annual Effluent Reports, three of which were
included as appendices to the Reclamation Plan. URS will confirm. If this is so, URS
will consider the issue closed.
• DUSA Round 1 Response §2.14: The information and analyses of the seismic
characterization of the site provided in the response are based on guidance in effect as of
2006 and 1999; NRC, USGS, and other investigators and scientific entities have since
issued revised guidance that should be considered and incorporated, as appropriate, in an
updated seismic hazard evaluation and updated estimate of long-term ground motions at
the site to support the final closure design, and this information be reflected in the revised
Reclamation Plan; URS will provide a summary of this guidance in an interim
communication. This preliminary summary was provided to DUSA in a January 20,
2009 email from Bob Baird to Harold Roberts.
• DUSA Round 1 Response §2.19.1: Because the design of the proposed cover system is
being revised for all of the tailings cells at the site, URS recommends that certain
additional design guidance (including NRC Regulatory Guide 3.64 and DOE 1989) be
considered. URS will provide a summary of this guidance in an interim communication;
Deleted:
Memo
Page 3 of 19
All parties agreed that no action DUSA might take in construction of Cell 4B would
preclude implementing any cover system design at a later date; Thus, UDRC will defer
review of cover system design until all related analyses (including DUSA’s infiltration
and transport modeling report) are completed; UDRC will instead condition the
forthcoming License and Permit amendment with a compliance schedule related to
submittal and approval of the revised cover system design.
• Titan Report dated Fall, 1996 requested.
• Surety requirements were also discussed. Details are provided below under the TBD
items in Attachment 2.
Mr. Luellen and Ms. Kelly were dismissed.
UDRC, DUSA, and URS considered each “TBD” interrogatory (Refer to Attachment 2) and
generally agreed on information that can be stated to address each issue. DUSA will provide
UDRC/URS with initial text addressing each “TBD” interrogatory, as summarized in italics in
Attachment 2, below.
The forthcoming Cell 4B ER review and approval schedule was reviewed:
• URS will provide electronic file for listing of “TBD” interrogatories used in the meeting
(Refer to Attachment 2) on Jan. 19, 2010.
• DUSA will provide responses to Round 1 “TBD” interrogatories before Jan. 25, 2010.
• URS will deliver draft Round 2 interrogatories by Jan. 22, 2010 (or equivalently start of
business Jan. 25, 2010).
• UDRC will return comments to URS NLT COB Jan. 26, 2010.
• URS will revise and return revised Round 2 Interrogatory to DRC by COB on January
27, 2010
• DUSA will provide proposed wording for draft amended License and draft amended
Permit to UDRC and URS during the week of Jan. 25, 2010.
• UDRC will issue Round 2 interrogatories to DUSA by COB on Jan. 27. 2010.
• Following issuance of Round 2 interrogatories, URS will immediately undertake
preliminary preparation of the Safety Evaluation Report.
• DUSA will return written Round 2 responses to both DRC and URS by Feb. 4. 2010.
• Assuming all issues are satisfactorily addressed by Round 2 responses, URS will
complete the Draft Safety Evaluation Report, draft amended License, and draft amended
Permit by Feb. 11, 2010.
Deleted: UDRC said this approach is
acceptable, but may draw adverse public comment later.
Memo
Page 4 of 19
• UDRC and URS will iterate URS’ draft documents and endeavor to finalize amended
License, modified Permit, and Statement of Basis by Feb. 18, 2010. This draft License
and Permit will include new compliance schedule items for future reports critical to
support DRC authorization to use Cell 4B.
• UDRC will endeavor to publish notice of 30-day public comment period in 3 different
newspapers by Feb. 22, 2010. Public comment period should end on or near March 23,
2010.
• UDRC will schedule public meeting in Blanding on Wednesday, March 17, 2010.
• UDRC and URS will endeavor to issue draft Public Participation Summary by end of
April 2010.
• UDRC will endeavor to issue amended License, amended Permit, and Public
Participation Summary by about May 8, 2010.
• DUSA acknowledged that a re-consideration or appeal of either the License and/or
Permit has the potential to delay the Cell 4B construction schedule.
Deleted: of
Deleted: any request by a member of the public for
Memo
Page 5 of 19
ATTACHMENT 1
Meeting Agenda
Tailings Cell 4B Environmental Report
Round 1 Interrogatory Response
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Attendees:
DRC: Loren Morton
URS: Bob Baird
Denison: Harold Roberts, Dave Frydenlund
1) Introductions
2) Status of Cell 4B Construction
3) Discussion on Scope of Review
4) Discussion on Specific Responses
5) Review of Project Schedule
6) Path Forward
Memo
Page 6 of 19
ATTACHMENT 21
WHITE MESA ROUND 1 INTERROGATORIES STATED AS
“TO BE DETERMINED”
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.
DUSA will provide specific references to the Reclamation Plan (Rev. 4.0) or the
February, 2007 License Renewal Application (LRA) qnd explain how this issue is
resolved..
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.
1 During the January 19, 2010 meeting, this outline of TBD items was provided by URS and discussion was held on
possible ways DUSA may address and resolve the issues A summary of these possible solutions is presented for
each TBD item in italics.
Memo
Page 7 of 19
DUSA will provide specific references to the Reclamation Plan (Rev. 4.0) or the
February, 2007 License Renewal Application (LRA), and explain how this matter is
resolved.
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.
DUSA will provide specific references to the Reclamation Plan (Rev. 4.0) or the
February, 2007 License Renewal Application (LRA), and explain how this is resolved.
Memo
Page 8 of 19
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 .
DUSA may reference the 1979 EIS approved by the NRC, which envisioned a total
conceptual site capacity of ~ 10.9 Million tons for disposal in Cells 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.
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.
DUSA will make statements that no exceptions or alternatives are proposed.
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
Memo
Page 9 of 19
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.
DUSA will mention how it makes efforts to avoid proliferation on a national level by
accepting ISL decommissioning waste / debris from other licensees outside of Utah.
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.
DUSA will draft wording to explain how the tailings cells are found both below and
above grade, but that approved engineering design shows the piles / dikes will be stable
for 200 to 1,000 years. Specific references will be provided.
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
Memo
Page 10 of 19
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.
DUSA will draft a response to summarize UDRC approved Best Available Technology
(BAT) including double HDPE liners, leak detection system, and nearby groundwater
monitoring wells.
UDRC asked URS to examine the effects of the elevated structural contour surface or
“island” on the Brushy Basin Shale at depth under Cell 4B, as provided in the recent
Nitrate Plume Study by Intera. Emphasis needs to be given on this horizontal no-flow
groundwater boundary may change local groundwater directions (stream tubes) and the
possible need for additional monitoring wells at Cell 4B.
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.
DUSA will reference the Cell 4B engineering design report and explain how all concerns
are resolved.
Memo
Page 11 of 19
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.
DUSA will reference the Geosyntec engineering design report, other related DUSA
submittals (such as 9/11/09), recap UDRC’s review and acceptance, and explain how
this issue is resolved.
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.
DUSA will reference the Geosyntec engineering design report, other related DUSA
submittals (such as 9/11/09), recap UDRC’s review and acceptance, and explain how
this issue is resolved.
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,
Memo
Page 12 of 19
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.
DUSA will explain how they desire to: 1) defer resolution of this issue until later, after
submittal of a final cover design, 2) how they are willing to accept new License and
Permit conditions to require a schedule for submittal and later Executive Secretary
approval, and 3) how this approach poses adequately protects public health and the
environment.
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
DUSA will explain how the currently approved Reclamation Plan (Rev. 3.0) requires
radon testing during post-closure to demonstrate compliance with the 20 pCi/m2/s limit,
and that this was carried forward into Rev. 4.0, and will be carried forward in all other
future revisions.
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
Memo
Page 13 of 19
(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.
DUSA will explain how Rev. 4.0 of the Reclamation Plan includes appropriate, general
site cleanup criteria that address / resolve this issue.
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.
DUSA will explain how Rev. 4.0 of the Reclamation Plan includes appropriate, general
site cleanup criteria that address / resolve this issue.
Memo
Page 14 of 19
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.
DUSA will explain how pre-site monitoring data was provided historically, and how ~ 30
years of operational data are available. In addition,DUSA will justify that this issue is
resolved by considering factors such as: utility of an engineering leak detection system
under Cell 4B to provide early warning before liner leakage, the new monitoring wells to
be installed (including numbers and locations), and a future Permit compliance schedule
for a defined period of background groundwater quality monitoring at said wells.
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.
DUSA will reference and explain how existing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)
and the Environmental Protection manual resolve this issue.
Memo
Page 15 of 19
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.,
Memo
Page 16 of 19
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
requirement since this provides no additional assurance other than that which already exists
through license requirements.
All parties agreed that the next annual surety (due in March, 2010) would NOT include
costs for Cell 4B cover construction. Instead, DUSA would submit this information at a
later date, under separate cover as an adjustment to the March, 2010 annual report. In
the interim, the draft License exposed to public comment will include a new condition that
details a deadline for submittal of said surety revision for Cell 4B. UDRC will review the
estimate after it is submitted, and DUSA will not be authorized to operate Cell 4B until
said surety estimate is approved by the Executive Secretary and the evidence for surety
adjustment submitted.
This revised estimate will be based on the assumption of that the current approved cover
system layering / properties / characteristics will be extended over Cell 4B. After
approval of a final cover design (subsequent to the revised infiltration and contaminant
transport model), the Reclamation Plan and Surety will then be revised as needed.
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:
Memo
Page 17 of 19
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.
DUSA will explain how this issue is resolved due to: 1) the three previously submitted
background groundwater quality reports relied on in the recent Permit modification
(executed as of January 20, 2010), 2) the related September, 2009 UDRC Statement of
Basis, and 3) the final Permit.
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.
DUSA will reference / explain the applicable requirements found in theUDRC approved
Discharge Minimization Technology (DMT)/BAT Monitoring Plan.
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:
Memo
Page 18 of 19
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
DUSA will reference / explain how this issue is resolved by relevant sections of the
UDRC- approved: 1) Contingency Plan, and 2) Discharge Minimization Technology
(DMT)/BAT Monitoring Plan.
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
Memo
Page 19 of 19
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.
DUSA will explain how this issue is covered by existing Permit requirements.
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.
DUSA will explain how this issue is covered by existing Permit requirements.