Permit No. AR0048950 AFIN 26-00277 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FINAL PERMITTING DECISION Response to comments received on the subject draft permit in accordance with regulations promulgated

Page 1 of Response to Comments

NPDES Permit No. AR0048950

AFIN 26-00277

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

FINAL PERMITTING DECISION

Response to comments received on the subject draft permit in accordance with regulations

promulgated at 40 C.F.R. § 124.17 are as follows:

Permit No.: AR0048950

Applicant: Umetco Minerals Corporation - Wilson Mine Area

Prepared by: Loretta Reiber, P.E.

Public Notice Date: The draft permit was publicly noticed on May 18, 2012.

The following comments were received on the draft permit:

A. E-mail from Nita Wingo to Katie Henderson dated May 18, 2012.

B. E-mail from Denise Parkinson to Katie Henderson dated May 18, 2012.

C. Letter from Billy Wilson to Steve Drown dated June 21, 2012.

D. E-mail from Harry Elliott to Loretta Reiber, P.E. dated June 21, 2012.

E. Letter from Dr. Joe Nix, PhD., to Steve Drown dated June 19, 2012, received via e-mail.

F. Letter from Lucious Boudreaux to Loretta Reiber, P.E. dated June 20, 2012.

G. Letter from Lyle Godfrey, P.E. of ADH to Mo Shafii dated June 18, 2012.

Oral comments were received from the following people at the public hearing held June 21,

2012:

A. Denise Parkinson

B. Scott Seastrom

C. Michael Jones

Umetco comments (Comments #1-#13)

Comment #1: Reasonable potential and permit limitations should be recalculated based on site-

specific hardness supported by observed data downstream of Outfall 001. According to Section

13.D of the Statement of Basis, reasonable potential and limits calculations were based on a

receiving stream hardness of 31 mg/l which is the default value for the Ouachita Mountains

ecoregion. Data collected downstream of the Outfall 001 in Wilson Creek at Station “WILL”

and submitted with monthly discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) have shown a much higher

hardness than the default ecoregion value. The minimum hardness of the 86 data points

collected since 1997 is 173 mg/l. The facility’s requirements to maintain a continuous release

from East Wilson Pond (Condition No. 5 of Part II of the permit) provides a reliable source of

background flow. Therefore, Umetco requests that reasonable potential and, if necessary, permit

limits be recalculated using a site specific hardness of 173 mg/l.



AFIN 26-00277

Response #1: The Department does not concur with the permittee’s request.

The Department does not dispute the validity of the hardness data submitted by the permittee.

However, the data submitted by the permittee was collected at a point where it was affected by

the hardness of the effluent from this facility, i.e., downstream of the outfall.

In accordance with the ADEQ Discharge Permit, Toxic Control Implementation Procedures in

Appendix D, page D-37 of the Arkansas Continuing Planning Process (hereinafter “CPP”), the

aquatic toxicity standards which are functions of hardness were calculated at the hardness values

in Attachment VI to Appendix D of the CPP. The hardness values are based on data from

waterbodies which were not affected by a point source discharger.

The permittee’s monitoring point in Wilson Creek is downstream of the outfall. The effluent

from this facility comprises the majority of the receiving stream at the monitoring point. The

Department does not agree that use of the effluent hardness is equivalent to the hardness at a

point in the stream unaffected by the effluent. Any site-specific hardness data must be collected

at a point where it is not affected by the discharge from a point source. Therefore, no changes to

the permit will be made at this time.

Comment #2: The permit limitations for Beryllium are unnecessary and should be removed

from the permit. Section 13.A of the Statement of Basis references Reg. 2.508 as the

justification for the beryllium limitations. The water quality standard for beryllium in Reg. 2.508

is 4 µg/l. The beryllium data submitted as part of the application and on DMRs do not

demonstrate reasonable potential to violate the water quality standards for beryllium and permit

limits are unnecessary.

Section 13.D of the Statement of Basis states that the beryllium limitations were continued from

the previous permit. The “Technology-Based Versus Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations

and Conditions” table indicates that the limits were based on water quality criteria of 0.08 µg/l

monthly average and 0.12 µg/l daily maximum. These criteria were in effect during the previous

permit but have since been removed from Reg. 2.508 and replaced with a 4 µg/l standard. Based

on the revised standard and the observed data, the beryllium limitations can be removed from the

renewed permit without violating anti-backsliding regulations. Therefore, Umetco requests that

the permit limitations for beryllium be removed from the permit.

Response #2: Beryllium limits were included in the previous permit issued to this facility

because reasonable potential for water quality violations had been demonstrated. Information

submitted with the permit renewal application showed that Beryllium is still present in the

effluent.

40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1) states that the Department must include any requirements which are

necessary to achieve water quality standards, including State narrative criteria. Reg. 2.409 states

that a facility may not discharge toxic pollutants in amounts which are toxic. This includes

parameters which are present at levels which are not toxic by themselves but contribute to the



AFIN 26-00277

toxicity of the effluent as a whole. The facility has had issues with Whole Effluent Toxicity

lethal and sub-lethal failures during the term of the previous permit. The cause of the toxicity

could be the metals in the effluent. Therefore, any toxics must remain unchanged in the permit

until the cause of the toxicity is determined. The Department will review the results of all WET

testing and metals testing at the time of the next permit renewal in order to determine if a

removal of the beryllium limit is warranted.

Comment #3: The monitoring requirements for arsenic are unnecessary and should be removed

from the permit. Section 13.D as well as the table in Section 13.A of the Statement of Basis cite

the previous permit as justification for the arsenic monitoring requirements. However, arsenic

data submitted with the application and on DMRs during the previous permit do not demonstrate

reasonable potential to violate any referenced water quality standard. Based on the observed

data, the arsenic monitoring requirements can be removed from the permit without violating

antibacksliding regulations. Therefore, Umetco requests that the monitoring requirements for

arsenic be removed from the permit.

Response #3: Monitoring and reporting requirements for Arsenic were included in the previous

permit because the geometric mean of the reported Arsenic levels demonstrated reasonable

potential to exceed the bioaccumulation criterion specified in the Gold Book (Quality Criteria for

Water 1986). An Arsenic limit was not included in the permit because the Department does not

have water quality criteria for Arsenic in the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology

Commission’s (hereinafter “APC&EC”) Regulation 2. Information submitted by the permittee

on the DMRs and the permit renewal application demonstrate that Arsenic is still present in the

effluent.

As stated above in Response #2, the facility has had issues with Whole Effluent Toxicity lethal

and sub-lethal failures during the term of the previous permit. The cause of the toxicity could be

the metals in the effluent. Therefore, any toxics must remain unchanged in the permit until the

cause of the toxicity is determined. The Department will review the results of all WET testing

and metals testing at the time of the next permit renewal in order to determine if a reduction in

the monitoring frequency for Arsenic is warranted.

Comment #4: Umetco requests that Condition No. 1 of Part II be revised to state “…shall hold

at least a Basic Industrial license…” to allow operators with an Advanced Industrial license to

operate the treatment system, if necessary.

Response #4: The Department will make the change as requested since the intent of the permit

will remain unchanged.

Comment #5: The current permit allows a value of zero (0) to be reported on the DMRs for any

individual analytical test result that is less than the minimum quantification level (hereinafter

“MQL”). Without this allowance, Umetco is required to report “less than the MQL” for these

results on the DMR. Given that the proposed permit limit for beryllium (0.08 µg/l) is less than

the MQL of 0.5 µg/l, reporting “< 0.5 µg/l” could be misinterpreted as a permit violation.

Therefore, Umetco requests that the following language, which is consistent with the current

permit, be added to Condition No. 7 of Part II of the permit.



AFIN 26-00277

“If any individual analytical test result is less than the minimum quantification level (MQL)

for that parameter, then a value of zero (0) may be used for discharge monitoring report

(DMR) calculations and reporting requirements.”

Response #5: The MQL is the lowest concentration at which a particular contaminant can be

quantitatively measured using a specified test method. The Method Detection Level (hereinafter

“MDL”) is the minimum concentration of a parameter that can be measured and reported with a

99 percent confidence that the concentration is greater than zero as determined by the specified

test method. Often, the MQL and the MDL are different values.

The previous permit contained the condition referenced by the permittee because the system into

which the DMR data was entered at that time could not accept an entry of “non-detect” or

“below MQL.” The Department therefore had the policy to allow permittees to report “0”

instead of “less than the MQL” when the level of the parameter in the effluent was below the

MQL or not detected. This policy was in place to prevent a reported result being misinterpreted

as a permit violation.

The system into which the DMR data is entered has changed. The Integrated Compliance

Information System (ICIS) allows entry of “non-detect” and “below MQL.” Therefore, Part IA

of the permit will be modified to reflect that “NODI=B” should be reported if a metal is not

detected in the effluent and that “NODI=Q” should be reported if the metal is detected in the

effluent but that level is below the minimum quantification level for the test method used. Both

codes have been included because the permit limit is below the MQL. Use of the two different

codes will allow the Department and any interested party to know if Beryllium was detected in

the effluent or not when reviewing the DMR data.

Comment #6: Umetco requests that Condition No. 8 of Part II specify that it is for the INTERIM

WET testing requirements to avoid confusion with the final requirements in Condition No. 9 of

Part II. Similarly, Umetco requests that Condition No. 9 of Part II specify that it is for the

FINAL WET testing requirements and not effective until three (3) years after the effective date

of the permit to avoid confusion with the interim requirements.

Response #6: The change will be made as requested. A sentence which states when each

condition is applicable has been added to the beginning of Conditions #8 and #9.

Comment #7: According to [Environmental Protection Agency (hereinafter “EPA”)] Region 6

WET Permitting Strategy (May 2005), “Region 6 will implement limits for sub-lethal limits at

the 80% effluent level at this time.” Please revise Condition Nos. 8.2.a.iii and 8.5 of Part II to

“…80% effluent or lower…” in accordance with the EPA permitting strategy.

Response #7: The change will be made as requested since the sub-lethal WET limits are 80%.



AFIN 26-00277

Comment #8: The last sentence of Condition No. 8.5.a of Part II might be interpreted as

requiring control measures to be implemented and effective during the 28 months allowed for the

toxicity reduction evaluation (TRE). Please clarify that the goal at the end of the TRE is to

identify causes of toxicity and treatment methods.

Response #8: Condition No. 8.5.a of Part II states that a TRE is defined as a step-wise process

which combines toxicity testing and analyses of the physical and chemical characteristics of a

toxic effluent to identify the constituents causing effluent toxicity and any treatment methods

which would reduce the effluent toxicity. The goal of the TRE is to maximally reduce the toxic

effects of effluent at the critical dilution.

The sentence in question does not state that the control measures must be implemented and

effective during the TRE. It states that the TRE is a process to determine the cause of the

toxicity and the methods necessary to reduce effluent toxicity. The Department understands that

the cause of the toxicity and methods for reducing effluent toxicity may not be identified until

near the end of the 28 months allowed for the TRE, which is the basis for including the

provisions of Part II.8.5.d in the Permit.

Comment #9: Please clarify the purpose of Condition No. 8.5.a.iii. If it is requiring

confirmation of suspect toxicants and sources, then it is too prescriptive in specifying sample

types, test durations, etc. Please revise to the following: “The permittee shall conduct

appropriate testing and analysis to confirm toxicants and/or sources of toxicity that it identifies or

suspects during the study.”

Response #9: The Department does not concur. Although the Department concurs that the

objective of the TRE is to confirm a specific pollutant (i.e., Arsenic or Beryllium) or source as

the cause of the toxicity in the effluent, it is necessary to include specific test requirements to

verify that the parameter in question is the cause of the toxicity.

The paragraph in question states that if a specific pollutant is suspected, then the permittee must

conduct chemical analysis for that pollutant concurrently with toxicity testing. This will verify if

the pollutant in question is contributing to toxicity. The paragraph also states that when lethality

is noted, each composite should be analyzed separately. This will verify whether the pollutant in

question was present in all samples or noted in only one or more of the samples.

Comment #10: In Condition No. 9.1.c of Part II, please clarify if retests to evaluate WET limit

compliance are still required while the permittee is conducting a TRE.

Response #10: Condition #9 of the permit does not include TRE requirements for the facility

after the WET limits are in place, i.e., three years from the effective date of the permit. Monthly

re-tests for WET limit failures are required.



AFIN 26-00277

Comment #11: The permittee requested that the following typographical errors be corrected:

a. Item 6.4 of the Statement of Basis should refer to Item #14 instead of Item #15.

b. Item 6.5.a of the Statement of Basis should state “Basic Industrial.”

c. In Item 13 of the Statement of Basis, the limits contained in the previous permit for Chlorides

and Sulfates have been transposed.

Response #11: Item 6.4 of the Statement of Basis will be changed to read Item Nos. 14 and 16

since the item in question was meant to refer the reader to the permit compliance section, as well

as the WET testing section of the Statement of Basis. The other typographical errors will be

corrected as requested.

Comment #12: Please clarify that the Standard Industrial Classification Code (SIC) 1094 applies

to active mine sites but this permit is for a reclamation site that discharges no process wastewater

associated with active mine sites. Also, the North American Industry Classification System

(NAICS) code 212291 refers to “establishments primarily engaged in developing the mine site,

and/or beneficiating (i.e., preparing) uranium-radium-vanadium ores.” The activities at this site

are more accurately described by NAICS code 562910 which is defined as “an establishment

primarily engaged in one or more of the following: (1) remediation and cleanup of contaminated

buildings, mine sites, soil, or ground water; (2) integrated mine reclamation activities, including

demolition, soil remediation, waste water treatment, hazardous material removal, contouring

land, and revegetation; and (3) asbestos, lead paint, and other toxic material abatement.” Please

revise the NAICS code to 562910.

Response #12: The Department is in agreement that the proper NAICS code for this facility is

562910 since only stormwater and groundwater, i.e., no process wastewater, is being discharged

from this facility. The corresponding SIC code is 4959 which has a description of “Sanitary

Services, NEC (remediation services).” (NEC = Not Elsewhere Classified) Item No. 10 of the

Statement of Basis discusses the SIC code and the NAICS code as they pertain to the activities of

the facility. This item will be modified to reflect the updated NAICS and SIC codes.

Comment #13: The table in Item 13.D of the Statement of Basis lists an arsenic concentration of

79 µg/l representing the highest of 20 reported values. Umetco’s records indicate that the

maximum reported arsenic concentration since September 2008 is < 1.0 µg/l. Furthermore, the

highest reported beryllium is 0.4 µg/l and not the 0.2 µg/l reported in this table. Please provide

more information as to the source of the data referenced in this table.

Response #13: The arsenic value of 79 µg/l was the value reported on the DMR for the month

of May 2008. The Department concurs that the highest reported beryllium value was 0.4 µg/l.

The Statement of Basis has been updated.



AFIN 26-00277

Dr. Joe Nix, PhD. comments (Comments #14 - #21)

Comment #14: If seepage (groundwater) from the Lecroy area is being pumped into East

Wilson Pit for treatment, why is Indian Springs Creek (direct drainage from the Lecroy area) still

polluted (violating current water quality standards)?

Response #14: The public notice issued by the Director on May 18, 2012, was specifically

related to proposed changes within the draft NPDES Permit No. AR0048950. While the East

Wilson Pond is part of the treatment system covered by this NPDES permit, water quality

monitoring in Indian Spring Creek is outside the scope of the permit. The facility is monitoring

Indian Spring Creek for metals and minerals as required by their Comprehensive Reclamation

Plan (“hereinafter CRP”), as well as Consent Administrative Order (hereinafter “CAO”) LIS 07-

095. Further, remedial actions are currently being initiated by UMETCO to improve collection

and remediation of seepage from the Lecroy area. No changes to the permit are proposed based

on this comment.

Comment #15: Dr. Nix stated that he did not understand the decision to not calculate mass

(loadings) from this source or the reference that is made stating the use of data reported for

samples taken during storm events should not be used in “averages”. What happens during

storm events? Do constituents of concern go up or down as water discharge increases? If they

go up, there may be significant mass loadings during such events.

On page 11, the following statement is made: “The permittee is required to take samples which

are representative of the discharge over the course of the month. This means that some samples

must be taken while the permittee is discharging storm water. The permit should not contain

limits which the permittee cannot comply with if they are in compliance with other conditions of

the permit.” Dr. Nix asked the Department to please consider the lack of logic in this statement.

If something is being discharged during storm events, it could have an impact on the receiving

system.

Response #15: The Department acknowledges this comment. 40 C.F.R. §§ 122.45(f)(1)(ii) and

(iii) do not require mass limits to be placed in a permit when the applicable standards and

limitations are expressed in terms of other units of measurement. Mass limits are typically not

included in permits where the majority of the effluent is comprised of stormwater because of the

high variability in flow. For instance, the monthly average flows ranged from 0.1 MGD

(October 2010) to 3.76 MGD (January 2010). The ratio of daily maximum flow to monthly

average flow ranged from 1.08 (July 2011) to 3.97 (April 2011).

The mass of a pollutant in the effluent is calculated as follows:

Mass, lb/day = Concentration, mg/l * Flow, MGD * 8.34 (conversion factor)

When discharge volumes are affected by a storm event, the concentration of a parameter may

decrease while the mass increases due to increased flows. Typically, if a storm event is

occurring or has occurred recently, the receiving stream is able to assimilate an increased loading

from a point source discharger because the flow in the receiving stream is higher than the flow



AFIN 26-00277

(typically the 7Q10) upon which the permit limits were based. It is important to note that the

permittee is required to comply with all concentration limits, whether or not the volume of the

discharge has increased in response to a storm event.

The Department will modify paragraphs 3 and 4 of Item #13.C.1 of the Statement of Basis. The

paragraphs will now read as follows. The changes have been italicized.

“Monthly averages are calculated as the sum of all “daily discharges” measured during a

calendar month divided by the number of “daily discharges” measured during that month. The

facility therefore cannot use the monthly average flow rate to calculate the monthly average

loading rate. This could cause a violation of the permit limits if the sample was taken on a day

when the volume of the discharge increases because of a recent storm event.

The permittee is required to take samples which are representative of the volume and the nature

of the discharge over the course of the month. All samples which are taken are comprised of

stormwater runoff and groundwater since the two wastewaters commingle in East Wilson Pond

prior to discharge. Some samples will be required to be taken when the volume of the discharge

increases due to a rain event.”

Comment #16: Dr. Nix stated that, if he read the document correctly, all solids are to be retained

in the treatment pond or other designated areas for sludge disposal. If this is true, why is there

such a large accumulation of solids at the point where Wilson Creek enters Lake Catherine?

This is extremely obvious during winter draw downs.

Response #16: The Department acknowledges this comment. Part III, Section B, Condition No.

1 requires facilities to properly operate and maintain all treatment units. This condition is a

standard condition in all NPDES permits. For pond systems, it requires facilities to maintain the

capacity of the treatment ponds so that they don’t fill-in with solids. In addition, Part III, Section

B, Condition No. 6 requires the permittee to manage any solids, sludges, or filter backwash in

such a manner that if any of these materials are removed in the course of treatment or control of

waste waters, these materials must be disposed in a manner to prevent any pollutant from such

materials from entering the waters of the State. The Department has no knowledge of solids or

sludges generated by the permittee that have resulted in the direct discharge of this material into

Lake Catherine. Land use activities located between the permitted outfall 001 and Lake

Catherine include U.S. Highway 270 and a Union Pacific railroad track. Solids in such a

location could be the result of numerous sources of surface erosion caused by non-point source

activities not taking place on Umetco property. In addition, an observation of Lake Catherine

during managed lake drawdowns indicated at the confluence of most water bodies that entered

the lake, there were varying accumulations of solids.

Comment #17: The frequency for sampling and analysis for vanadium in the effluent is simply

not adequate (2 times per year).

Response #17: The Department acknowledges this comment. The facility is a mine reclamation

site, and as such, no vanadium ore processing has occurred at this site since the mid 1980s. 40

C.F.R. § 122.44(h)(i)(2) states, “requirements to report monitoring results shall be established on



AFIN 26-00277

a case-by-case basis with a frequency dependent on the nature and effect of the discharge, but in

no case less than once a year.”

During preparation of the draft permit, the Department reviewed the Vanadium data submitted

during the term of the permit issued in 2006. The permittee has not demonstrated reasonable

potential to cause an instream excursion of the lowest observed adverse effect level for vanadium

derived from a study performed by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard

Assessment (hereinafter “COEHHA”). As stated above, the Department has based the decision

to continue to require twice per year monitoring for Vanadium in the permit because this facility

is no longer a functioning vanadium mine, but instead, is undergoing reclamation activities.

Comment #18: On page 15, the number of 3.76 MGD is used in a calculation dealing with

Water Quality-based toxic substances. The source of this number is quoted as DMR data. If

they are reporting [3.7] MGD, why are they not considered a major pollution source?

Response #18: 40 CFR 122.2 and 40 CFR 124.2 define a major facility as any NPDES “facility

or activity” classified as such by the Regional Administrator, or, in the case of “approved State

programs,” the Regional Administrator in conjunction with the State Director.

Industrial dischargers are not rated as major or minor on the basis of the volume of their

discharges alone. The Department uses the NPDES Permit Rating Work Sheet (hereinafter

“MRAT”) to determine if an industrial source is a major or a minor facility. This system takes

into account factors such as whether or not a facility discharges process wastewater, the

permitted levels of oxygen demanding parameters and Total Suspended Solids, the water quality

of the receiving stream, and the uses of the receiving stream. Facilities are assigned a number of

points specified on the rating sheet for each of these factors. Facilities with scores of 80 or less

are considered to be minor sources while facilities with scores in excess of 80 are considered to

be major sources. Umetco’s score is 35 at the time of this permit renewal. Therefore, they are

considered to be a minor source. A copy of the facility’s MRAT sheet is available on the

Department’s web site.

Comment #19: The Department based its decision on what to include as constituents which have

the potential to exceed water quality standards on a priority pollution scan. Was this only one

scan and was storm water runoff a part of it? If not, this decision might be wrong.

Response #19: The permittee was required to conduct only one full Priority Pollutant Scan for

the permit renewal application. Stormwater is always a component of the wastewater which is

sampled because stormwater and groundwater commingle in East Wilson Pond prior to

discharge.

The Department also used data submitted on the monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports, as well

as data submitted under CAO LIS 07-095, when determining the appropriate permit

requirements.



AFIN 26-00277

Comment #20: During the process of changing the water quality standards in Wilson Creek

(Third party rule making process), there was a huge public outcry asking questions about the

impact of this discharge on Lake Catherine. In numerous meetings, hearings, and appearances

before legislative committees, comments were offered to point out that the routine sampling

conducted by ADEQ could not provide answers to many of the questions being asked. Because

of the need for additional information, ADEQ (in conjunction with regional legislators) agreed

that an expanded study of the lake would be conducted. Arrangements were made for funding of

the expanded study and a portion of it is currently underway. It is anticipated that the expanded

study will require approximately one year. Since the expanded study covers most of Lake

Catherine, results may well reflect impacts for numerous discharges other than that of UMETCO

(covered under this DRAFT permit). But the study may provide new information which point

out the need to modify this permit. For this reason, there should be a mandatory review of this

permit at the conclusion of the expanded study.

Response #20: The Department acknowledges this comment. Condition No. 2 of Part II of the

permit authorizes the Department to reopen the permit if information becomes available which

would warrant the inclusion of more stringent permit limits. Therefore, no additional permit

action is necessary at this time.

Comment #21: Dr. Nix stated that he is completely overwhelmed at the complexity of this

permit. Dr. Nix wonders if ADEQ (or EPA) really expect the general public to understand it

well enough to offer meaningful comments. Unless a person is a professional in the area of

permits and environmental regulations, there is little possibility that a review of this document

will be very meaningful. Dr. Nix realizes that there are many “restrictions” and regulations

which ADEQ and EPA are required to follow and this contributes to the complexity of the

document, i.e., you have no other choice but to make it complex. Dr. Nix fears that such

complexity will ultimately result in a situation in which the average citizen or even people with a

technical background cannot offer a meaningful reaction to the document. Dr. Nix is concerned

that many look at the permit and just immediately “give up”. This is unfortunate since these are

the people who stand to be impacted by potential environmental damage.

Dr. Nix stated that he honestly wishes he had the time, knowledge, and expertise to delve into the

details of this DRAFT permit. Although he is a scientist and have studied lakes and rivers of

Arkansas for around 50 years, he stated that he cannot begin to understand the highly complex

nature of this document.

Protecting the water of this state has high priority for him as well as most people of the state.

Good water impacts our ability to grow, attract sound industry, have quality recreation and in

general, a high quality of life. Dr. Nix stated that he urges ADEQ, EPA, and the Arkansas

Pollution Control Commission to take the measures necessary to maintain the quality of the

waters of this state. OVERLY COMPLEX PERMITS ARE NOT THE WAY TO DO THIS!

Response #21: The reclamation activities covered under this NPDES permit are very complex

and are very specific to the activities at this site. These conditions are written for the permittee.

As recognized by Dr. Nix, many of the permit conditions are based on federal regulations which

are required to be included or cited in NPDES permits. To be consistent, the Department prefers



AFIN 26-00277

to include the language of the regulation in all NPDES permits, instead of just a regulatory

citation, so any person reading these permits does not also have to have a copy of the applicable

regulations to determine the permit requirements. The format of this permit is consistent with

other NPDES permits issued by ADEQ and follows the requirements of the Arkansas Continuing

Planning Process and 40 C.F.R. Parts 122, 124, and § 125.3.

In accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 124.7, the Department prepared a Statement of Basis for the

permit which describes the derivation of the conditions of the permit and the reasons for them.

While some calculations may seem complex to the general public, they are necessary to ensure

that the permit terms and conditions are protective of water quality. This permit has been

reviewed and approved by EPA and is in compliance with all federal and State regulations.

Denise Parkinson comment (Comment #22)

Comment #22: The issue of radioactivity issuing from UMETCO’s un-lined landfill via Indian

Springs Creek (which percolates from beneath the UN-LINED 10,000,000-ton mine-sludge pit)

remains unresolved. Ms. Parkinson attached a memo from the ADH that resulted from radiation

testing which took place in compliance with a directive from the Legislative Public Health

Committee. She found it to be incomplete and is seeking additional analysis from an expert in

the field.

Ms. Parkinson stated that the issue of radioactivity and its harmful effects on the adjacent

Stanage Road neighborhood remains unresolved, and should take precedence over any

permitting that pertains to Wilson Creek, which is located in a remote area off a closed logging

road, and thus does not directly impact a residential area. Many Stanage Road residents,

including entire families, are sick and/or dying. This fact has been repeatedly brought to the

attention of authorities.

Ms. Parkinson stated that she would appreciate a response to her question concerning the status

of Indian Springs Creek with regard to existing radiation contamination from the landfill site:

What is to be done?

Ms. Parkinson also made oral comments at the public hearing concerning radioactive waste and

radiation.

Response #22: The Department acknowledges the comments. The public notice issued by the

Director on May 18, 2012, was specifically related to proposed changes within the draft NPDES

Permit No. AR0048950. While the East Wilson Pond is part of the treatment system covered by

this NPDES permit, comments concerning the landfill and alleged radioactive wastes are outside

the scope of the NPDES permit.

It is important to note that the Arkansas Department of Health (ADH) is the appropriate state

agency to evaluate concerns regarding radioactivity in Arkansas. The ADH conducted an

environmental radiation sampling survey on January 31, 2012, and determined that “Radiation

levels measured along Indian Springs Creek near the UMETCO site are higher than those

measured at the edge of Lake Catherine. These differences may be attributable to differences in



AFIN 26-00277

geology. The Indian Springs Creek area is made up primarily of rock and soil containing trace

amounts of uranium, in contrast to the Lake Catherine draw down area that consists mainly of

alluvial sand and mud. However, the average readings in both of these areas are within the range

of readings expected within the State of Arkansas.” “Data from the study of radiation levels

along Indian Spring Creek did not find evidence of excessive radiation exposure that would be of

concern to human health.” Therefore, no change to the permit is necessary.

Harry Elliott comments (Comments #23 - #26)

Comment #23: This permit authorizes the treatment (which consists of pH adjustment and

settling) and discharge of treated contaminated surface water drainage from the mined areas

(Spaulding, North Wilson pit, T-pit, and Lecroy). It also authorizes the discharge of collected

flows from precipitation into East Wilson Pond and "groundwater from the immediate vicinity of

East Wilson Pond and Indian Springs Creek."

In the facility application, it is stated that the majority of water treated by a neutralization plant is

storm water and surface water collected by Wilson Creek and diverted to the treatment plant. A

smaller volume of groundwater and storm water is pumped from the South Lecroy area to the

neutralization plant for treatment. Mr. Elliott does not believe the permittee has adequately

described the characteristics (pollutants and pollutant concentrations) or volume of the

wastewater being pumped to the treatment system from the vicinity of East Wilson Pond and

Indian Springs Creek. This information must be included in the permit application so the

Department can be certain that all pollutants are properly regulated in the permitted discharge.

The Department should require the permittee to submit this information before it issues a final

permit decision.

Response #23: The Department acknowledges the comments. 40 C.F.R. § 122.21 outlines the

information that must be submitted with an application for an NPDES permit. In accordance

with 40 C.F.R. § 122.21(g)(3), the permittee submitted the average flows and treatment for each

area contributing wastewater to the effluent. On EPA Form 2C, the permittee estimated that 0.05

MGD was pumped from the South Lecroy area to East Wilson Pond and that 2.20 MGD was

collected from the Wilson Creek watershed. It is important to note that these are estimates of the

average influent flows from the various areas and do not necessarily reflect the effluent flows

listed on the DMRs. A Priority Pollutant Scan detailing the amounts of various parameters in the

effluent was submitted with the renewal application. 40 C.F.R. § 122.21 does not require a

facility to submit data regarding the characteristics of each waste stream prior to treatment nor

does the Department require such data to be submitted. The permittee completed the required

application forms to the Department’s satisfaction. The Department therefore deemed the

application complete as allowed under 40 C.F.R. § 122.21(e)(1).

Comment #24: The interim and final effluent limitations for the daily maximum concentration

for cadmium (4.5 µg/l) are less than the calculated acute toxicity concentration for cadmium

(4.84 µg/l). In other words, the daily maximum concentration for cadmium is not allowed to

exceed the acute toxicity concentration. However, the interim and final effluent limitations for

the daily maximum concentration for zinc (191 µg/l) are much higher than the calculated acute

toxicity concentration for zinc (107.72 µg/l). In other words, the permit appears to allow



AFIN 26-00277

throughout the permit's term the daily maximum concentration of zinc to exceed the acute

toxicity concentration. Please revise the interim and final effluent limitations for zinc so the

daily maximum concentration does not exceed the acute toxicity concentration.

Response #24: The Department does not concur with the comment. The permit contains limits

for Cadmium and Zinc because reasonable potential for violations of the chronic water quality

standards (hereinafter “WQS”) was demonstrated. The limits for Zinc and Cadmium were

calculated using the same method. The permit limits were calculated in accordance with the

procedures outlined in Appendix D of the Arkansas Continuing Planning Process (CPP), which

has been approved by EPA Region VI. The procedures for calculating metals limits in the

Arkansas CPP are based upon Chapter 5 of the EPA’s Technical Support Document for Water

Quality-based Toxics Control (hereinafter “Technical Support Document”).

The first step in determining the need for a metals limit is to calculate the in-stream waste

concentration (hereinafter “IWC”). IWC represents the concentration of the parameter in

question in the receiving stream after the effluent has mixed with the waters already in the

stream. Since the background flow of the receiving stream, Wilson Creek, is zero (0) cfs, the

IWC is equal to the reported effluent data. If the IWC is higher than the WQS, reasonable

potential for water quality violations is deemed to exist.

After a determination that reasonable potential for water quality violations exists, the chronic and

the acute waste load allocations (hereinafter “WLAc” and “WLAa,” respectively) are determined.

For this facility, the WLAc and WLAa are set equal to the chronic and acute WQS since the

background flow of Wilson Creek is 0 cfs.

Once a WLA has been developed, a water quality-based permit limit may be derived to enforce

the WLA. Direct use of a WLA as a permit limit creates a significant risk that the WLA will be

enforced incorrectly, since effluent variability and the probability basis for the limit are not

considered specifically. Since effluents are variable and permit limits are developed based on a

low probability of exceedance, the permit limits should consider effluent variability and ensure

that the requisite loading from the WLA is not exceeded under normal conditions. In effect, the

limits must “force” treatment plant performance, which, after considering acceptable effluent

variability, will only have a low statistical probability of exceeding the WLA and will achieve

the desired loadings.

The next step in determining the permit limits is to calculate the Long Term Average (hereinafter

“LTA”) effluent concentrations based on the chronic and the acute WLAs. The factors by which

the WLAs are multiplied are determined through calculations that are found in Attachment VII to

Appendix D of the Arkansas CPP. A copy of the Arkansas CPP may be found at

www.adeq.state.ar.us/water/pdfs/cpp.pdf .

LTAc = 0.72 * WLAc

LTAa = 0.57 * WLAa

http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/water/pdfs/cpp.pdf



AFIN 26-00277

The most stringent LTA is used to calculate the monthly average (hereinafter “AML”) and the

daily maximum (hereinafter “DML”) final permit limits. For Cadmium, the chronic LTA is

more stringent, while the acute LTA is more stringent for Zinc. The factors by which the

limiting LTA is multiplied are determined through calculations which are found in Attachment

VII to Appendix D to the Arkansas CPP.

AML = LTA * 1.55

DML = LTA * 3.11

Section 5.4.2 of the Technical Support Document states that the EPA specifically discourages the

approach of using the WLA developed for protection against chronic effects as the average

monthly limit and the acute WLA as the daily maximum limit. Since effluent variability has not

been specifically addressed with this approach, compliance with the monthly average effluent

limit during critical conditions could exceed the chronic (4-day) WLA. Whether standards are

violated with excessive frequency under such conditions would depend upon whether the

conditions represented by the worst case assumptions of the model also were occurring at that

same time. By contrast, compliance with limits that were developed using statistical procedures

have a low chance of leading to WLA excursions because effluent variability is accounted for in

deriving the limits.

Comment #25: It is well documented that the Indian Springs Creek surface and subsurface

waters have been impacted by mining activities. While this permit sets effluent limitations for

the discharge to Wilson Creek, which includes the groundwater collected from the Indian

Springs Creek area, it does nothing to regulate the contaminated water (both groundwater and

surface water) that is not collected. The unregulated discharge of contaminants to waters of the

state in the vicinity of East Wilson Pond and Indian Springs Creek should be addressed in

UMETCO's permit.

What are the characteristics of the aquifer in the Indian Springs Creek area? Is Indian Springs

Creek below the sulfate reduction barrier and sump area contaminated? What happens to the

contaminated groundwater and surface water that is not collected? The permit describes water

that is pumped from Indian Springs Creek to the neutralization plant. How big are the pumps?

How much water do they move? How often do they run? What happens to that water in the

event of power failure? Does it bypass treatment? What is the effect? Is it toxic?

Response #25: The public notice issued by the Director on May 18, 2012, was specifically

related to proposed changes within the draft NPDES Permit No. AR0048950. While the East

Wilson Pond is part of the treatment system covered by this NPDES permit, a determination of

the characteristics of the aquifer in the Indian Spring Creek area is outside the scope of this

NPDES Permit. The permittee is required to monitor several surface water and groundwater

sites as part of their CRP and CAO LIS 07-095. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 124.17(a)(2), the

ADEQ will respond only to those comments which are within the scope of the NPDES permit.

Therefore, no changes to the permit are necessary.



AFIN 26-00277

On EPA Form 2C, which was submitted as part of the permit renewal application, the permittee

estimated that 0.05 MGD is pumped from the South Lecroy/Indian Spring Creek area to East

Wilson Pond. The permittee is not required to test the levels of various parameters in the

groundwater and the stormwater which is routed from the South Lecroy Area to East Wilson

Pond as part of the NPDES permit. The permittee is not required to receive approval for the

pumps. They are only required to be of sufficient size and to operate for a sufficient time to

transfer the water to East Wilson Pond so that a discharge does not occur in the Indian Spring

Creek area. The permittee does have a portable 6-inch diesel pump on site in the event of a

power failure and they are also required by Part III, Section B, Condition No. 7 of the permit to

have sufficient storage capacity, standby generators, etc. to prevent the discharge of untreated

wastewater.

Comment #26: The water that is pumped into the neutralization basin is contaminated. (The

commenter attached a 2008 letter from Waste Engineering.) The permit does not make that point

clear and could be misleading to the public. Please revise the permit so it states that the

groundwater being pumped from the Indian Springs area is contaminated.

Response #26: The Department does not concur. The 2008 letter from Waste Engineering

outlines conditions which were present at Umetco at the time the letter was written. It does not

state that the groundwater in the Indian Spring Creek area is contaminated.

Billy Wilson comment (Comment #27)

Comment #27: Historical information of this facility reveals pollution of both surface water and

groundwater. Public comments for this facility have requested groundwater monitoring due to

concern of surface water contaminating groundwater. According to [Ark. Code Ann.] § 8-4-217,

Unlawful Actions, it shall be unlawful for any person to cause pollution as defined in [Ark. Code

Ann.] § 8-4-102 of any waters of the state which includes groundwater. In addition, [Ark. Code

Ann.] § 8-4-203 gives the Department the authority and responsibility, in permit actions, to

prevent, control, or abate pollution. Why were the original groundwater wells for this facility

removed when they had been revealing contamination? There should be groundwater

monitoring in this permit to assure that the surface water discharge and impoundments at this

facility are not causing pollution of the groundwater.

Response #27: The Department acknowledges the comment. The permittee is required to

monitor several surface water and groundwater sites as part of their Comprehensive Reclamation

Plan and Consent Administrative Order LIS 07-095. This information is available on the

Department’s web site. Therefore, it is not necessary to include additional monitoring

requirements in the NPDES permit.



AFIN 26-00277

Nita Wingo comment (Comment #28)

Comment #28: Ms. Wingo requested the definition of UAA.

Response #28: UAA means Use Attainability Analysis. APC&EC Reg. 2.106 defines Use

Attainability Analysis as a structured scientific assessment of the factors affecting the attainment

of the fishable/swimmable use which may include physical, chemical, biological, and economic

factors.

Scott Seastrom comments (Comments #29-30)

Comment #29 (summary):

Mr. Seastrom stated that he had a file of record for Umetco that started in 2007 which he

received on or about June 16, 2012 at a Ouachita Riverkeeper meeting. He stated that he is on

the Board of Directors for the Ouachita Riverkeeper and is a member of Save the Ouachita.

ADEQ tested Wilson Creek twelve to eighteen months ago. All the levels were up to 100% over

the limit.

Wilson Creek runs into Lake Catherine. He lives on the lake and is about saving the Ouachita

River and the community. The biggest recreation area on Lake Catherine is less than 0.25 miles

below the confluence of Wilson Creek and Lake Catherine. The biggest rural water district

withdraws water from Lake Catherine right below Remmel Dam. The City of Malvern

withdraws water out of Lake Ouachita (sic) directly north of the I-30 bridge. The reason the

water is withdrawn above the bridge is so that if there is ever a chemical spill on the interstate, it

will be downstream of the water supply.

What do the drinking water facilities think about the chemicals, minerals, and radiation going

into the lake?

Response #29: The commenter did not provide a copy of the water quality data he referred to in

his comments. However, it is assumed the levels he was referring to were mineral (chlorides,

sulfates, and total dissolved solids) standards that were subsequently changed during the recent

third-party rule making process. The Department has changed the permit limits in this permit to

reflect the changes that were approved in the water quality standards for minerals as a result of

the third-party rule making process.

The Arkansas Department of Health (hereinafter “ADH”) prepared a Health Consultation dated

December 1, 2011, which stated that there is currently no evidence of potential off-site human

exposure to Umetco site-related contaminants through public drinking water sources. The ADH

concluded that accidentally ingesting the surface water or making dermal contact with surface

water at or near the Umetco site (which are considered to be the only potentially complete

pathways at this site) are currently not expected to harm people’s health because sample results

of chlorides, sulfates, total dissolved solids, cadmium, chromium, and vanadium are below levels



AFIN 26-00277

of public health concern. The ADH also stated that there is no evidence of elevated cancer cases

associated with this site. See Comment #32 below for ADH’s formal comments on this permit.

The limits for Chlorides, Sulfates, and Total Dissolved Solids (hereinafter “TDS”) are equal to or

less than the secondary drinking water standards and no primary drinking water standards exist

for those parameters. The permittee has demonstrated that the facility is capable of meeting the

permit limits.

Comment #30 (summary):

As a Ouachita Riverkeeper, Mr. Seastrom formally asked that ADEQ lower the limits and do

more extensive studies on this situation. Traditionally, ADEQ and Riverkeepers have had a bad

history. Mr. Seastrom stated that the Ouachita Riverkeeper will do independent testing of this

situation if it becomes necessary.

Response #30: The Department acknowledges this comment. All permits are issued in

accordance with Federal and State regulations.

Michael Jones comment (Comment#31)

Comment #31:

The following is a summary of the oral comments Michael Jones made at the public hearing.

Mr. Jones made several comments regarding his history, as well as that of his family in the area.

He also stated that the Department should not be blamed for only doing what is allowed to be

done under the laws and regulations. Comments were also made regarding radiation. Comments

were also made regarding the people employed by the mines in the area. General comments

were also made regarding the operation and effects of mining.

Response #31: The Department acknowledges these comments. No changes to the permit are

necessary.

Arkansas Department of Health comment (Comment #32)

Comment #32: The Arkansas Department of Health requested that no discharge limits above the

National Primary Drinking Water Standards and recommends that no discharge limits above the

National Secondary Drinking Water Standards be allowed as Wilson Creek, Indian Spring Creek,

and other onsite drainage discharge into an established source water protection are for two public

water supplies on the Ouachita River.

Response #32: The Department has compared the limits in the permit to the Primary Drinking

Water Standards and the Secondary Drinking Water Standards. All permit limits are equal to or

more stringent than those standards. Therefore, no changes to the permit are required.

Documents

Permit No. AR0048950 AFIN 26-00277 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FINAL PERMITTING DECISION Response to comments received on the subject draft permit in accordance with regulations promulgated