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.
Page 2 of Response to Comments
NPDES Permit No. AR0048950
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
Page 3 of Response to Comments
NPDES Permit No. AR0048950
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.
Page 4 of Response to Comments
NPDES Permit No. AR0048950
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%.
Page 5 of Response to Comments
NPDES Permit No. AR0048950
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.
Page 6 of Response to Comments
NPDES Permit No. AR0048950
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.
Page 7 of Response to Comments
NPDES Permit No. AR0048950
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
Page 8 of Response to Comments
NPDES Permit No. AR0048950
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
Page 9 of Response to Comments
NPDES Permit No. AR0048950
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.
Page 10 of Response to Comments
NPDES Permit No. AR0048950
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
Page 11 of Response to Comments
NPDES Permit No. AR0048950
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
Page 12 of Response to Comments
NPDES Permit No. AR0048950
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
Page 13 of Response to Comments
NPDES Permit No. AR0048950
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
Page 14 of Response to Comments
NPDES Permit No. AR0048950
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.
Page 15 of Response to Comments
NPDES Permit No. AR0048950
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.
Page 16 of Response to Comments
NPDES Permit No. AR0048950
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
Page 17 of Response to Comments
NPDES Permit No. AR0048950
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.