HomeMy WebLinkAbout20081053.tiff Esther Gesick
From: Bill Jerke
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 1:25 PM
To: Esther Gesick
Subject: FW: TMSM-Spam: ISL mine violations- 10 days ago
Attachments: 1359823180-Sm ith_H ighland_violations.pdf
Smith_Highland_viol
ations.pdf...
Original Message
From: Robin Davis [mailto:robin@mustanghollow.com]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 10:55 AM
To: Phillip Brewer; William Garcia; Bill Jerke; Trevor Jiricek; Dave Long; Rob Masden;
Douglas Rademacher; paul wood
Subject: TMSM-Spam: ISL mine violations - 10 days ago
Please see the attached. Do we really want to see something like this in Colorado? We
MUST protect what little water we already have.
Robin Davis
www.mustanghollow.com
//// •
2008-1053
6 nuntimi zz wow 1- 7- L i
PL/P99
Esther Gesick
From: Bill Jerke
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 4:36 PM
To: Esther Gesick
Subject: FW: Violations of ISL mining permits at Smith Ranch in Wyoming
Importance: High
Attachments: Smith_Highland.pdf
p
ro
Smith_Highland.pdf
(604 KB)
Original Message
From: Daryl Burkhart [mailto:darylburkhart@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 11:08 AM
To: Dave Long; Douglas Rademacher; Rob Masden; Bill Jerke; William Garcia
Subject: Violations of ISL mining permits at Smith Ranch in Wyoming
Importance: High
Commissioners--
As per the attached, please don't let this happen in Weld County!
Daryl and Cynthia Burkhart
Windows Live Hotmail is giving away Zunes. Enter for your chance to win.
<http://console.mxlogic.com/redir/?1KrppjvKesjdw0z4E81ckfApYKjHcjVv09rxUw7gmMAvmSD-
tY2Uj66GSAws2g618G2h091kr5hKF2h_yE4JMY13a9K_9LLFI3AjhO-
yrKrgS9oYwT4GjScMkjHcjVsSYMYUCOrhjKUYgen7xO9JZUS6p1fSsGMEg8aKCy0d60Gq85pgB0yq85LyHat3hlIPh
OcacCj d40bS5ypEwBOQgOamGHal4TfM-ub7XalJ4SyrppjvKehhdFUi_6ouv>
1
`%e Department of Environmental Quality ,ems
9r ,� G1! r
4,14‘ •_r)s.
♦ FF
;,� To protect, conserve and enhance the quality of Wyoming's
environment for the benefit of current and future generations.
Dave Govemor John Corra,Director
ttrrh 10, 2008
CERTIFIED MAIL.RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED#7005 1820 00051478 8828
Mr.John McCarthy
Power Resources,Inc.
P.O. Box 1210
• Glenrock WY 82637
RE: Insitu Uranium Permits 603 and 633,Notice of Violation,Docket No.4231-08
Dear Mr. McCarthy:
Enclosed you will find a Notice of Violation issued under the provisions of W.S.§ 35-11-415(a)and(bXii).
The Notice of Violation is based on the investigation conducted Mr.Mark Moxley during the fall of 2007:The
investigation found that PRI failed to conduct concurrent reclamation which is a violation ofChapter 3,Section
2(kxixD),and that PRI failed to follow the approved permits.
The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Land Quality Division(LQD)is attempting to resolve
this issue without further enforcement action,and requires that you contact Mr. Donald R. McKenzie,LQD
Administrator at 307-777-7046 within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter to schedule a meeting to
resolve this enforcement action. Should resolution of this enforcement action be reached as a result of this
meeting,a Settlement Agreement including a penalty assessment will be signed by both parties.
Respectfully,
Jo n V Corra Donald R. McKenzie
Di r Administrator
Department of Environmental Quality Land Quality Division
Enclosures: Notice of Violation
Investigation Report
cc: Lowell Spackman, District I w/attachments
Mark Moxley, District II w/attachments
Docket#4231-08 w/attachments • •
Doug Mandeville,NRC w/attachments
Herschler Building • 122 West 25th Street • Cheyenne,Wyoming 82002•http://degestate.wy.us
a-�-
AOINWOUTREACN ABANDONED MINES AIR QUALITY INCUBTRIM.SEND LAND QUALITY SOUD A RAZ.WASTE WATER QUALITY ,
(307)777-7758 (307)77743145 (307)777.7391 (307)m•7368 (307)777.7756 (307)777-7752 (307)777.7791
FAX m-3610 FAX 777-6482 FAX m-5616 FAX m-6937 FAX m-5864 FAX 777-5973 FAX 777.5973
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
STATE OF WYOMING
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
IN THE MATTER OF THE NOTICE OF
VIOLATION ISSUED TO •
POWER RESOURCES,INC. DOCKET NO. 4231-08
P.O.BOX 1219
GLENROCK,WY 82637
Re: Inattn Uranium Operation,Permit 8603
Re: Insitu Uranium Operation,Permit#633
NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:
I. Notice of Violation is being sent to you pursuant to W.S. §35-11-701(c) which
requires that a written notice shall be issued in the case of failure to correct or
remedy an alleged violation specifying the provision of the act, rule, regulation,
standard,permit,license,or variance alleged to be violated.
2. As a result of Land Quality Division (LQD) concerns over the slow pace of
groundwater restoration of wellfields at Power Resources, Inc. Permits 603 and
633 Insitu Uranium Mine, an investigation was conducted of the mine and
reclamation plans in the approved permits, plus information provided in annual
reports. This investigation was conducted by LQD staff during October and
November of 2007. In addition to the violations cited below, LQD identified
serious deficiencies with both permits: The plans contained in the permit
documents are dated and incomplete in numerous ways: spill detection,reporting,
and follow-up protocols are not defined in the permit; groundwater restoration
procedures, necessary facilities, and time schedules for restoration must be
thoroughly described; waste disposal facilities and processes must be described
for all waste streams;all critical process installations need thorough construction
details and specifications; and topsoil protection procedures are not adequately
defined.As a consequence of the inadequacies of the permits,both operations are
seriously under-bonded.
3. The investigation found that PRI failed to conduct concurrent reclamation which
is a violation of Chapter 3, Section 2(k)(i)(D) requiring concurrent reclamation;
and that PRI failed to follow the approved permits, which is a violation of W.S.
§35-I 1-415(a).The following lists the specific violations:
Permit 603
a. Wellfield C was in production for approximately ten years.The approved
Mine Plan states, "Once a wellfield is installed it takes approximately one
to three years to recover the leachable uranium from a production area."
Extending the production time period has become a routine practice and is
not in compliance with the approved permit or the requirement. for
concurrent reclamation.
b. In addition to the production phase, Wellfield C has now been in
restoration for ten years. The 2007 Annual Report states that the ground
water quality is similar to "end of mining" wellfield conditions. The
permit states that restoration and stability are estimated to take
approximately five years.This restoration delay is not in compliance with
the approved permit or the requirement for concurrent reclamation.
c. Wellfield E has removed 100% of the leachable reserves, and in recent
years wellfield production has slowed to maintenance levels.This rate of
production delays completion of mining and restoration of this wellfield
•
unit.This is not in compliance with the approved permit,and is a violation
of Chapter 2,Section 2(b)(ii)which requires coordination of the Mine and
Reclamation Plans to facilitate orderly development and reclamation.
d. The timetable listing the schedule of mining-related activities in the permit
(Figure A, page OP-3A) and the timetable provided in the 2007 annual
report both indicate that PRI is not in compliance with their restoration
schedules for Wellfields C,D,and E.The schedule shows that Wellfield C
should be decommissioning instead of in restoration,and that Wellfields D
and E should be in restoration instead of production.
Permit 633
a. The permit indicates that"An updated schedule will be supplied with the
annual report if the mining or restoration schedule varies from Table 3-1"
The timetable commitments in the permit are not consistent with wellfield
status. Therefore,the table in the annual report is the schedule that PRI is
committed to for wellfield status. Based on this table, PRI is not in
compliance with their restoration schedules for Wellfields 2,3,and 4/4A.
The annual report text indicates that Wellfield 2 will continue to be in
production, while the annual report schedule referred to in the permit
shows that it will be in restoration in 2008. Wellfields 3 and 4/4a should
be in restoration instead of production.
b. The permit states that it generally takes "three years for uranium
production, and three years for aquifer restoration." Actual times for
wellfield production and restoration are, thus far, 2-3 times longer than
permit commitments.
4. Wyoming Statute §35-IY-901(a) provides that any person who violates any .
provision of the Environmental Quality Act or any rule,standard,permit, license
or variance adopted hereunder is liable to a penalty of ten thousand dollars
($10,000.00)for each day of violation,which penalty may be recovered in a civil
action brought by the Attorney General in the name of the People of the State of
Wyoming.
NOTHING IN THIS NOTICE shall be interpreted to in any way, limit or contravene
any other remedy available under the Environmental Quality Act,nor shall this Order be
interpreted as being a condition precedent to any other enforcement action.
SIGNED this 77) day of / /Atrn— 2008
tt c� 10.....
Joh Corra. Donald R.McKenzie
• Dir r . . Administrator - -
Department of Environmental Quality Land Quality Division
Please direct all inquiries regarding this Notice of Violation to Mr.Donald R.McKenzie,
Administrator,Land Quality Division,Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality,
122 West 25th Street,Cheyenne,WY 82002. Telephone No.(307)777-7046.
ec: Lowell Spackman,District 1
Mark Moxley,District II
Docket#4231-08
Doug Mandeville,NRC
•
Report of Investigation
Operator Power Resources, Inc.
Facility Smith Ranch- Highland Uranium Project
Mine Permit#603 (Highland) and#633(Smith Ranch)
Prepared By : Mark Moxley, LQD District 2 Supervisor,
Date' November 21,2007
Background:
This investigation was conducted at the request of Rick Chancellor,LQD Administrator, in-
response to concerns over recent spills and the slow pace of groundwater restoration at the Smith
Ranch-Highland ISL.operation. PRI's operation is located in Converse county in LQD District 1.
An investigator was brought in from LQD District 2 with the intention of having a fresh pair of
eyes look at the operation. The investigation was intended to identify and focus on"big picture"
issues, not specific details. The investigation proceeded as follows:
• Review of permit documents and annual reports
• Interviews with LQD District 1 staff
• Site tour and interviews with PRI staff
• Interviews with LQD District 3 staff
• Follow-up reviews and discussions
PRI began producing in 1988 and is currently the only significant producer of uranium in
Wyoming. They are currently producing at capacity levels(2 million pounds of yellow-cake in
2006 and they are expecting similar production in 2007). PRI has applied for a mine permit
amendment to add the Reynolds Ranch property and they are also planning to consolidate the •
Smith Ranch and Highland permits. This will result in a combined mine permit area some 41,000
acres in size. PRI is planning to increase their throughput capacity next year and add
approximately 30 people to their current staff of 100. They are also considering adding facilities
to provide toll milling services to process feedstock from other operators.
Given that PRI's operation has for many years been the major uranium producer in Wyoming,
there is an expectation that the operation might serve as a model for excellence in ISL mining.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. There are a number of major long-standing environmental
concerns at this operation that demand immediate attention. Recommendations are made as to
how to address these concerns.
Currently the uranium industry is experiencing a major boom. Drilling and pre-permitting
investigations are proceeding on many different properties around the state,including several
owned by PRI. The LQD is expecting numerous new ISL mine permit applications within the
coming 12-18 months. This increase in workload will be a major challenge for the LQD staff.
Achieving regulatory effectiveness and efficiency will be a high priority for LQD and it will
require the cooperation of the industry.
•
•
Major Regulatory Issues and Concerns with Permits 603 & 633:
1. Mine Permit:
The mine permit document is the primary regulatory mechanism governing the operation. The
mine and reclamation plan should describe in detail how the operation will be conducted so as to
comply with all of the major regulatory requirements. The mine and reclamation plans should be
updated and maintained so as to be a definitive reference for the operator,the regulatory agencies,
• and also the public. Having a definitive mine and reclamation plan is particularly important for
new staff. In the case of the Smith Ranch- Highlands operation(mine permits#603 and#633),
the plans contained in the permit document are out of date and incomplete in several important
areas. The following major deficiencies were noted:
A. The approved mining and reclamation schedules are not being followed and are not •
current. PRI is not conducting contemporaneous restoration as required by their permit
and WDEQ-LQD regulations. See discussion under item 2,below.
B. Spill detection, reporting, delineation, remediation, follow-up and tracking protocols are
not defined in the permit and should be. PRI experiences spills on a routine basis. See
discussion under item 3 below.
C. Groundwater restoration processes, facilities and procedures(incorporating and defining
BPT), flow rates and time schedules should be thoroughly described in the permit so that
expectations are clear. This has implications for bonding also.
D. Waste disposal facilities and processes should be clearly defined for all waste streams.
One example of inaccurate information in permit#603 (on pages OP-15 and 19)states that
byproduct solid waste materials will be disposed at the ANC Gas Hills facility(which
closed in 1994). This waste actually goes to the Pathfinder Shirley Basin facility.
E. Construction details and specifications should be thoroughly described for critical process
installations,including wells,pipelines,header houses, ponds,etc. One example of
inaccurate information in permit#603(on page OP-24)states that well casing joints are
fastened with screws. This practice is not consistent with the regulations and was
discontinued years ago.
F. Topsoil protection procedures are not adequately defined to assure that disturbance is
minimized and that the soil resource is protected. PRI's typical wellfield installation
procedures result in the near total disturbance of the native vegetation and soils. This is
not consistent with the regulation that allows for"minor disturbance"without topsoil
stripping. More definitive procedures should be implemented to restrict and consolidate
disturbance from roadways and pipelines and to insure careful topsoil salvage from well
sites,mud pits,pipelines,roadways, etc.
With the permit updates required by Chapter 11 and the proposed consolidation of the Highland
and Smith Ranch permits, now is an opportune time to correct permit deficiencies and construct a
permit that is informative and useful to all parties.
2. Contemporaneous Reclamation:
One of the fundamental requirements for any mining operation is that reclamation be conducted
concurrently with mining. Not only is this the most efficient operational strategy but it also
insures that the reclamation liability is kept at a reasonable and manageable level. This approach
ensures that the public is protected in the event of a forfeiture.
The schedule in permit#603, Highland,dates from 2005. An identical schedule was provided in
the July, 2007 annual report. That schedule shows that restoration of the C wellfield should have
been completed in 2006 and decommissioning should now be in progress. In actuality the
restoration of the C wellfield has been on-going for ten years and the RO treatment phase has only
just recently begun. According to the schedule,restoration of the D wellfield should have
commenced in 2006 and restoration of the E wellfield should have commenced in early 2007.
The annual report states that both the D and E wellfields are still in production. According to the
schedule there should now be five wellfields in production(D-ext, F,H,.I &J), two in restoration
(D &E)and three restored(A, B&C). In fact there are currently 7 wellfields in production,one
in restoration(C),and only 2 restored(A&B)at Highland.
The schedule contained in permit#633, Smith Ranch, dates from 1998. A more current schedule
was provided in the July,2007 annual report,yet even this recent schedule is not being followed.
According to that schedule,wellfields 1, 3 and 4/4A should now be in restoration. Production
from these wellfields was started in 1997, 1998 and 1999 respectively. Restoration of wellfield 1
is to be complete by mid 2008 and restoration in wellfield 2 is to commence in early 2008.
However, as reported in the annual report only wellfield I is in restoration(no completion date
stated)and no mention is made of any other planned restoration. In addition,a new wellfield (K)
went into•production this year and it does not even appear on the schedule. According to the
schedule there should now be three wellfields in production(2, 15& 15A)and three in restoration
(1,3 &4/4A). In fact there are currently five wellfields in production and only one in restoration.
No wellfields have been restored at Smith Ranch.
It is readily apparent that groundwater restoration is not a high priority for PRI. Reclamation is
not contemporaneous with mining. A total of 12 wellfields are now in production and restoration
is proceeding(slowly)in only 2 wellfields. Only 2 wellfields(A and B)have been restored in 20
years of operation. The permits project that production will typically last for 3-5 years per
wellfield and restoration will take 3-5 years per wellfield. It appears in reality that both
production and restoration timeframes have doubled or tripled and yet additional wellfields are
being brought into production.
It is recommended that a notice of violation be issued to PRI for failure to conduct concurrent
reclamation and failure to follow the approved schedules. A rigorous compliance schedule should
be implemented to accelerate restoration. A thorough re-evaluation of the operation schedules is
warranted. As pointed out below,new deep disposal wells(DDW's)and RO units will be
required to support restoration operations. LQD approval-of the Reynolds Ranch amendment as
well as any new wellfields should be contingent on installation of appropriate DDW's and RO
units and completion of restoration in existing wellfields.
3. Spills,Leaks and Excursions:
Over the years there have been an inordinate number of spills,leaks and other releases at this
operation. Some 80 spills have been reported,in addition to numerous pond leaks,well casing
failures and excursions. Unfortunately,it appears that such occurrences have become routine.
The LQD currently has two large three-ring binders full of spill reports from the Smith Ranch
Highland operations.
Protocols for spill detection, reporting,control,delineation,remediation and tracking should be
defined in the mine plan to cover all potential fluid types(injection fluids,production fluids,
waste fluids,chemicals and petroleum products) and all potential sources(buried pipelines,
surface pipelines, wellhead fittings,headerhouses, ponds, well casing failures,etc.). Protocols
should include mapping and delineation of the extent of soil and/or groundwater contamination
associated with each occurrence. A GIS system should be developed to facilitate long term
tracking of all spills and releases. An updated cumulative spill map showing all historic spills and
releases should be presented in each annual report along with documentation of follow-up actions.
Excursion protocols are addressed in some detail in the permit,but excursions should be tracked
on a cumulative basis in the annual report.
Cumulative tracking of spills and releases is important to insure appropriate follow-up on every
incident. Some of the spills may have little impact individually,but cumulatively they might have
a significant effect on soils and/or groundwater. A cumulative record will also assist in
pinpointing potential problem areas and developing appropriate preventative measures. PRI
should develop and implement an inspection and maintenance program designed to prevent future
spills. Spills should not and need not be an accepted consequence of ISL mining.
4. Reclamation Cost/Bonding:
The reclamation cost estimates contained in PRI's annual reports assume completion of all
groundwater and surface reclamation in 4 years with a staff of 26 people(1/4 of current staff),
using the existing facilities with the addition of only 2 new 400gpm RO units. This scenario is
totally infeasible and unsupported by any critical path timeline or water balance. Rough
calculations based primarily on PRI's figures reveal an alarming scenario.
• Adding the pore volumes for all of the existing wellfields gives a total pore volume(PV)
for the project(excluding restored wellfields A&B)of 5,133 Ac.Ft.
•
■ PRI's bond calculation includes only one PV of groundwater sweep,vs three PV's
specified in the permit. [Removal of this volume of water from the aquifer would be
problematic and warrants further evaluation.] PRI's four existing deep disposal wells
(DDW's)have a combined capacity of approximately 600gpm(@100% availability).
Disposal of one PV would take more than 5 years! This is not an acceptable schedule. A
more reasonable scenario would require at least doubling the disposal capacity
(1,200gpm),which would require 4 or 5 new DDW's. These would also be needed for
disposal of RO brine and should be included in the bond.
• PRI's bond calculation includes only 3 pore volumes of RO treatment. The approved
reclamation plan specifies circulation of a total of 6 PV's(3 groundwater sweep and 3
RO). It is likely that at least 5 PV's of RO treatment would be required if only one PV of
groundwater sweep was completed. Using the five existing RO units on the site,plus two
new 400 gpm units included in the bond calculation,producing a combined total of
1,360gpm of permeate(@80/20 permeate to brine ratio @100%availability),it would
take 854 days(2.3 years) to treat one PV! It would take at least 11.5 years to treat 5 pore
volumes. This is a not an acceptable schedule. A more realistic reclamation scenario
would require increasing the RO capacity by 2-3 times(3,000-4,000 gpm permeate
production). The additional RO units,as well as the additional building space, ancillary
treatment facilities and piping, should be included in the bond.
• Using the existing RO units(plus the two bonded RO units)and existing DDW's,
reclamation would take 20+years,assuming groundwater restoration was achieved
without any problems. (5 years for one PV of OW sweep+ 11.5 years for 5 PV's of RO
treatment+ 1 year stability monitoring+ 1 year decommissioning+ 1 year of surface
reclamation). Clearly this is not an acceptable schedule,but it does point out the need for
reevaluation of the reclamation plan, restoration schedule and the bond calculation.
• PRI's bond calculation includes minimal funds for new infrastructure,maintenance,
replacement and repair. Only two new 400 gpm RO units are included in the bond
estimate. The need for new wells, including DDW's,water storage and treatment ponds,
additional RO units,membranes,pumps,piping and general wellfield renovation should
be anticipated and included in the bond calculation.
• PRI's bond calculation assumes a staff of only 26 people, with 22 of them on a salary of,
only$34,000 per year! If their current operations require a staff of 100 people then it will
take at least 1/2 to 2/3 of that staff to conduct restoration. The restoration operations will
look very similar to production operations. Operation of RO units, in particular, is very
high maintenance and labor intensive. Retaining competent staff will require that wages
and benefits be at least$50,000 per year.
• . Considering that reclamation will take several times longer,require at least twice the staff
with higher wages and require much greater investments in infrastructure than PRI has
estimated, a realistic reclamation cost estimate for this site would likely be on the order of
$150 million, as compared to PRI's current calculation of$38,772,800. PRI is presently
bonded for a total of only$38,416,500. No bond adjustments have been made since 2002.
Clearly the public is not protected. It is recommended that PRI's bond be immediately
raised to a level of$80 million until a thorough evaluation, including critical path
analysis, can be completed and an appropriate bonding level established. No permit
amendments should be approved or new wellfields authorized until the bonding situation
is corrected.
•
5. Regulatory compliance:
Achieving environmental compliance at an operation of the size and complexity of PRI's Smith
Ranch- Highland Mine requires a high level of commitment from both the company and the
regulatory agency. PRI's environmental efforts have suffered from inadequate staffing,high
turnover, lack of institutional memory and a low level of corporate commitment. There has been
a lack of continuity and follow-through on many issues. At this point in time,overall
environmental compliance at this operation is poor. PRI should retain a full-time environmental
• staff of 4-5 qualified people, including a groundwater hydrologist to manage the groundwater
restoration. It is recommended that LQD immediately assign a staff person full-time to manage
this project as their#1 priority,and that monthly inspections be conducted to get a handle on the
issues identified in this investigation.
End of Report
Hello