Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY Ill Center Street Suite 1900 Little Rock, Arkansas (501)

Transcription

1 Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY Ill Center Street Suite 1900 Little Rock, Arkansas (501) DEC DOC IPI; to ~ t., 5.$/ TO: I'd[ z f:sl ~ SWMD L- William A.(Al) Eckert III aeckert@qgtl aw. com HAND DELIVERED Bryan Leamons, P.E., Engineer Supervisor Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality 5301 Northshore Drive North Little Rock, AR Direct Dial Direct Fax so ~~~i?kft7e9;~t Di:.C 1 6 L."J l).. J:~ 2{J.<J. Re: UMETCO Class 3N Landfill, Hot Springs, Arkansas Permit 0268-S3N-Rl; AFIN: Gentlemen: Umetco is in receipt of your letter of October 28, 2015, with regard to the submittal to. ADEQ of the 2014 Annual Engineering Inspection Report, and to Lori Burke's Letter ctt' December 11, This letter responds to statements in the October 28th letter as to groundwater monitoring activities, and a request to increase financial assurance to reflect costs associated with the groundwater monitoring at the former Wilson Mine Site associated with the Class 3N Solid Waste Permit ("Permit"), and to Lori Burke's assertion that no groundwater data from the well monitoring network has been submitted to ADEQ. There are no longer any groundwater monitoring activities associated ~ith the Permit. All groundwater monitoring conducted at the site relates to the reclamation of the former Wilson Mine site and associated spoils and is reported as required in the existing CAO LIS Therefore, no change to the financial assurance amount is appropriate, and there is no groundwater data relevant to the solia: waste permit currently collected or to be submitted. Approximately ten years ago, ADEQ and Umetco previously reached an understanding that the Permit requirements had been addressed, that the landfill cells were not impacting groundwater, and that remaining issues would be addressed as part of the reclamation of the South Lecroy area. ADEQ agreed that the solid waste permit would be voided upon approval by ADEQ's Mining Division of the South Lecroy area reclamation plan and related reclamation actions, including the installation of three new wells for reclamation monitoring purposes. In December of 2004, the ADEQ Mining Division informed Umetco that the Lecroy area reclamation plan was approved. In February of 2005, ADEQ by letter approved the decommissioning of twenty-nine (29) monitoring wells; seventeen (17) of these wells comprised

2 Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull PLLC Page 2 the entire monitoring network for the landfill cells as laid out in the Permit, and the remaining twelve (12) wells were associated with the reclamation ofthe Lecroy area. As of March of2005, Umetco completed the decommissioning/abandonment of these wells. In the 2005 Annual Solid Waste Permit Report submitted in April 2006, Umetco notified ADEQ that decommissioning of the monitoring wells was complete. Despite meeting the conditions set out by ADEQ for closure of the Class 3N Landfill Permit, the Permit was never administratively voided. The failure to close out the permit has led to confusion, as repeated requests are made by ADEQ for data from the monitoring well network that was closed with ADEQ authorization a decade ago. Due to the passage of time and change in personnel, this letter summarizes the history on this issue for ADEQ's convenience. Permit 0268-S3N-Rl The Class 3N Landfill Permit was issued in 1993 and revised in The two landfill cells, located on Umetco's former Wilson Mine property, contain scrubber bleed sludge and pond residues from ponds located on what is now the adjacent Evraz-Stratcor property. Scrubber bleed sludge and pond residues contain minerals from rocks ground to process the ore within them, and also contain salt from the roasting process used to mill the mined ore. The cells were constructed in the Lecroy area on top of spoils piles (overburden rock that was removed to access the vanadium ore beneath it). The cells were capped to prevent rainwater infiltration, and their base is above the water table, effectively isolating the sludge and pond residues from groundwater. The permit contained specifications for cell construction and cover and other elements, as well as establishing a groundwater monitoring program for seventeen ( 17) identified wells. Construction of the cells was completed in 1994, and monitoring began. A Sampling and Analysis Plan was required by the Permit, and was submitted by Umetco in 1993 and approved by ADEQ. Umetco continued monitoring for the next ten (10) years through 2005, submitting periodic Groundwater Conditions Reports documenting that the contaminants associated with the waste cells, especially chlorides associated with the sludge and pond residues, but not associated with the spoils, were diminishing. In May of 2004, the ADEQ Solid Waste Division in a meeting with Umetco agreed to void the Permit if proper requests and closure and post-closure documentation were submitted and approved by ADEQ. In a letter from ADEQ to Umetco dated August 30, 2004, ADEQ acknowledged Umetco's request to void the Permit and provided a list of necessary information to provide to the Solid Waste Division with the formal request to void the Permit. The letter also recommended that Umetco submit a petition to waive post-closure care since the facility already met the conditions of (b ). In October of 2004, Umetco submitted final documentation to support closure, including the information requested in the August 2004 letter. This included a final construction report for the landfill cells and a groundwater conditions report, which documented the decreasing trends of contaminants, especially chlorides, in the groundwater. The 2004 groundwater conditions report also discussed the closure of the seventeen ( 1 7) wells in the monitoring well network associated with the Permit. The Groundwater Conditions report also proposed installation of

3 Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull P LLC Bryan Leamons, P.E., Engineer Supervisor Page 3 three (3) new monitoring wells downgradient from the mine spoils area to monitor reclamation of the South Lecroy area. Specifically, Section 5.2 of the groundwater conditions report stated, "The groundwater monitoring program associated with the landfill is no longer pertinent and should be replaced with a program that addresses final remediation and closure of the site." On December 1, 2004, ADEQ Solid Waste Division indicated by letter that it was not willing to void the Permit until the Mining Division approved the South Lecroy area reclamation plan, noting that it anticipated that the approved reclamation plan would require the installation of three new groundwater monitoring wells (UM , UM , and UM04-22) downgradient from the mine spoils area. 1 Upon approval of the plan by the Mining Division, the Solid Waste Management Division would approve the closure of the monitoring well network and, when the wells were properly closed, terminate the Permit. On December 8, 2004, the Mining Division approved the Lecroy area reclamation plan. In February of 2005, the ADEQ Mining Division by letter to Umetco approved the sampling plan for the three (3) monitoring wells as outlined in the Groundwater Conditions Report (submitted as an attachment to the Closure Report for the Permit), which recommended monitoring groundwater from these three reclamation monitoring wells for three (3) years and "[i]f no significant increasing trends in any of the mentioned constituents at the end of the three (3) year period, monitoring shall be terminated." As a result of the sampling analysis set forth in Umetco's October 2004 report and the December 2004 approval of the reclamation plan by the Mining Division, ADEQ by letter dated February 8, 2005, approved the decommissioning of twenty-nine (29) monitoring wells (including the entire seventeen (17)-monitoring well network associated with the landfill cells and some reclamation-related wells), and in March, 2005, Umetco completed the decommissioning of the wells. ADEQ's internal memorandum of May 2005 (echoing an earlier memo from 2002), documented ADEQ's positions: (1) that the remaining issues in the South Lecroy area were related to mine spoils, not landfill cells; (2) that the 2004 Groundwater Conditions Report was the last report required, as contamination at the Wilson Mine Site was primarily a remnant of mining activities and not related to landfill units; and, (3) that no further action relating to the landfill cells was recommended. ADEQ's May 2005 memo also documented that the Solid Waste Management Division staff had already coordinated turning over the groundwater monitoring efforts to the Mining Division, and the Mining Division would continue on-site groundwater monitoring through their ongoing mine reclamation activities at this site. 1 Note that the Lecroy area was never included in the reclamation plan associated with the mining permit; the mining permit predated the Regulation 15 requirement for reclamation of spoils. Reclamation of the Lecroy area has been accomplished largely under a CAO with the Water Division, focused on reclamation of spoils to improve surface water quality downstream from the spoils.

4 Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull PLLC Page 4 In the 2005 Annual Solid Waste Permit Report submitted to ADEQ in April 2006, Umetco notified ADEQ that the monitoring wells for the landfill cells had been decommissioned. In 2010, when the Permit still had not been voided, Umetco provided additional documentation and summarized the justification to ADEQ for voiding the Permit in an October 28, 2010, letter from Umetco's counsel (Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull, & Burrow) to Roger Lawrence, Chief of the Solid Waste Management Division. Then, in February 2011, Umetco sent another letter to Mr. Lawrence requesting that ADEQ void the Permit providing additional details on how the Permit conditions related to groundwater had been met. This was followed by a request from ADEQ for additional documentation about the monitoring well decommissioning from Umetco's contractor, URS, provided detailed information about the 2005 monitoring well decommissioning in a letter to ADEQ dated August 24, Following this supplemental submission, no concerns or questions were expressed by ADEQ, and no further information was requested. Despite submission of the required documentation identified by ADEQ in the May 2004 meeting along with additional, detailed information as requested, the Permit has not been voided. This has resulted in repeated ADEQ Solid Waste Management Division requests for data from the monitoring well network after ADEQ approved closure of the well network, and periodic requests like the one in the most recent October 28, 2015 letter, for financial assurance for groundwater monitoring activities unrelated to the Permit. Path Forward Due to the passage of time and the change in ADEQ personnel since these activities began, it is unclear why the Solid Waste Permit has not been voided. The landfill cells were permitted, constructed, and closed in the timeframe. Monitoring continued for ten years, at which point Umetco and ADEQ's staff attempted to void the Permit in At that time, ADEQ reviewed the data and acknowledged that, "Contamination at the site is primarily the remnant of mining activities and not related to the landfill units, therefore no further action is required." Now, another decade has passed, and the Permit still has not been voided, despite numerous communications by Umetco documenting that the Permit conditions have been met. ADEQ and Umetco have been working on a way to clarify the documentation and summarize current obligations at the former Wilson Mine Site in a single Consent Administrative Order (CAO). Because a CAO is an enforcement mechanism, it is not ideal to provide sufficient flexibility to document Umetco's options and plans for remaining work, and attempting to negotiate the terms of this order have been time consuming. ADEQ has indicated that the Permit will be voided and Mining Permit reclamation obligations will be released in connection with entry of this CAO. Umetco believes the Solid Waste Permit should have been voided long ago in the normal course. Similarly, Umetco believes the reclamation obligations in the mining permit (which do not include work at South Lecroy) have been completed and should be released in the normal course. Umetco remains willing to clarify its remaining obligations at the South Lecroy in a CAO or other agreement, but does not see the need to link the voiding of

5 Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull P LLC Page 5 the Permit and the release of the Mining Permit Reclamation obligations, which have been completed, to that CAO or other agreement. Since 2005, even with the supporting documentation, ADEQ has failed to proactively move forward with termination of the Permit. The groundwater monitoring activities referred to in the October 28th letter are not an integral part of the Permit, which is well beyond the postclosure period, and there are no requirements or conditions left to be met under this Permit. All groundwater monitoring at the former Wilson Mine property is a function of site reclamation, not the Permit. Therefore, no change to the financial assurance mechanism is necessary, and there is no data available from the 17 -well solid waste monitory network to submit, as all of those wells have been closed. Umetco again requests that the Permit be voided. Umetco remains committed to completing technically sound, long-term, sustainable and protective reclamation of the former Wilson Mine site. Umetco is willing to pursue clarification of its remaining obligations in a form acceptable to both ADEQ and Umetco. However, Umetco does not see the need to tie resolution of the decades old Permit to the current efforts to define the path forward for reclamation. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS & TULL PLLC William A. ckert III cc: James F. Strunk, Jr., Umetco Margaret Bazany, Counsel Becky Keogh, ADEQ Tammy Harrelson, ADEQ Will Montgomery, ADEQ

6 ADEQ A R K A N S A S Department of Environmental Quality October 28, 2015 James F. Strunk, Jr. UMETCO Minerals Corporation 2754 Compass Drive, Suite 280 Grand Junction, CO RE: Receipt Acknowledgement of the 2014 Annual Engineering Inspection Report UMETCO Class 3N Landfill, Hot Springs, Arkansas; Permit: 0268-S3N-Rl; AFIN: Document Number: 68469; Cross Reference: Dear Mr. Strunk: The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality - Solid Waste Management Division (ADEQ-SWMD) staff has received the 2014 Annual Engineering Inspection Report (AEIR) for the UMETCO Class 3N Landfill (Permit# 0268-S3N-R I). The SWMD has updated our database with information contained in the AEIR. Please note that the SWMD has not performed a detailed technical review of the AEIR or the facility and as such only acknowledges the receipt of the AEIR. This acknowledgement in no way authorizes a change in the permit for the facility and does not represent an approval of any changes to the facility detailed within the AEIR. The certified 2014 AEIR cost estimate for financial assurance provided by the facility's professional engineer is $15, Please be advised that that UMETCO Minerals Corporation is required to provide to Ms. Susan Speake, ADEQ-SWMD Programs Branch Manager, the updated financial assurance to cover aji required amounts. The groundwater monitoring activities at the facility is an integral part of your solid waste permit and as such, your financial assurance should be upgraded to reflect costs associated with the groundwater monitoring at the site. Please call me at (50 1) should you have any questions regarding the above information. I? _g~ Bry~~~P.E. Engineer Supervisor cc: Susan Speake, Programs Branch Manager, SWMD Lori Burke, Inspector, SWMD Paul Crawford, FTN Associates Ltd. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 5301 NORTHSHORE DRIVE I NORTH UTILE ROCK I ARKANSAS I TELEPHONE I FAX

7 Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY Ill Center Street Suite 1900 Little Rock, Arkansas (501) William A.(AI) Eckert III aeckert@qgtlaw. com Direct Dial Direct Fax HAND DELIVERED Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality 5301 Northshore Drive North Little Rock, AR Re: Gentlemen: UMETCO Class 3N Landfill, Hot Springs, Arkansas Permit 0268-S3N-R1; AFIN: ~<l<k~~~ " DEC \ ti lolb m:a ~ Umetco is in receipt of your letter of October 28, 2015, with regard to the submittal to ADEQ of the 2014 Annual Engineering Inspection Report, and to Lori Burke's Letter of December 11, This letter responds to statements in the October 28th letter as to groundwater monitoring activities, and a request to increase financial assurance to reflect costs associated with the groundwater monitoring at the former Wilson Mine Site associated with the Class 3N Solid Waste Permit ("Permit"), and to Lori Burke's assertion that no groundwater data from the well monitoring network has been submitted to ADEQ. There are no longer any groundwater monitoring activities associated with the Permit. All groundwater monitoring conducted at the site relates to the reclamation of the former Wilson Mine site and associated spoils and is reported as required in the existing CAO LIS Therefore, no change to the financial assurance amount is appropriate, and there is no groundwater data relevant to the solid waste permit currently collected or to be submitted. Approximately ten years ago, ADEQ and Umetco previously reached an understanding that the Permit requirements had been addressed, that the landfill cells were not impacting groundwater, and that remaining issues would be addressed as part of the reclamation of the South Lecroy area. ADEQ agreed that the solid waste permit would be voided upon approval by ADEQ's Mining Division of the South Lecroy area reclamation plan and related reclamation actions, including the installation of three new wells for reclamation monitoring purposes. In December of 2004, the ADEQ Mining Division informed Umetco that the Lecroy area reclamation plan was approved. In February of 2005, ADEQ by letter approved the decommissioning of twenty-nine (29) monitoring wells; seventeen (17) of these wells comprised

8 Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull P LLC Page 2 the entire monitoring network for the landfill cells as laid out in the Permit, and the remaining twelve (12) wells were associated with the reclamation of the Lecroy area. As of March of2005, Umetco completed the decommissioning/abandonment of these wells. In the 2005 Annual Solid Waste Permit Report submitted in April 2006, Umetco notified ADEQ that decommissioning of the monitoring wells was complete. Despite meeting the conditions set out by ADEQ for closure of the Class 3N Landfill Permit, the Permit was never administratively voided. The failure to close out the permit has led to confusion, as repeated requests are made by ADEQ for data from the monitoring well network that was closed with ADEQ authorization a decade ago. Due to the passage of time and change in personnel, this letter summarizes the history on this issue for ADEQ's convenience. Permit 0268-S3N-Rl The Class 3N Landfill Permit was issued in 1993 and revised in The two landfill cells, located on Umetco's former Wilson Mine property, contain scrubber bleed sludge and pond residues from ponds located on what is now the adjacent Evraz-Stratcor property. Scrubber bleed sludge and pond residues contain minerals from rocks ground to process the ore within them, and also contain salt from the roasting process used to mill the mined ore. The cells were constructed in the Lecroy area on top of spoils piles (overburden rock that was removed to access the vanadium ore beneath it). The cells were capped to prevent rainwater infiltration, and their base is above the water table, effectively isolating the sludge and pond residues from groundwater. The permit contained specifications for cell construction and cover and other elements, as well as establishing a groundwater monitoring program for seventeen ( 1 7) identified wells. Construction of the cells was completed in 1994, and monitoring began. A Sampling and Analysis Plan was required by the Permit, and was submitted by Umetco in 1993 and approved by ADEQ. Umetco continued monitoring for the next ten (1 0) years through 2005, submitting periodic Groundwater Conditions Reports documenting that the contaminants associated with the waste cells, especially chlorides associated with the sludge and pond residues, but not associated with the spoils, were diminishing. In May of 2004, the ADEQ Solid Waste Division in a meeting with Umetco agreed to void the Permit if proper requests and closure and post-closure documentation were submitted and approved by ADEQ. In a letter from ADEQ to Umetco dated August 30, 2004, ADEQ acknowledged Umetco's request to void the Permit and provided a list of necessary information to provide to the Solid Waste Division with the formal request to void the Permit. The letter also recommended that Umetco submit a petition to waive post-closure care since the facility already met the conditions of (b ). In October of 2004, Umetco submitted final documentation to support closure, including the information requested in the August 2004 letter. This included a final construction report for the landfill cells and a groundwater conditions report, which documented the decreasing trends of contaminants, especially chlorides, in the groundwater. The 2004 groundwater conditions report also discussed the closure of the seventeen ( 17) wells in the monitoring well network associated with the Permit. The Groundwater Conditions report also proposed installation of

9 Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull P LLC Bryan Leamons, P.E., Engineer Supervisor Page 3 three (3) new monitoring wells downgradient from the mine spoils area to monitor reclamation of the South Lecroy area. Specifically, Section 5.2 of the groundwater conditions report stated, '"The groundwater monitoring program associated with the landfill is no longer pertinent and should be replaced with a program that addresses final remediation and closure of the site." On December 1, 2004, ADEQ Solid Waste Division indicated by letter that it was not willing to void the Permit until the Mining Division approved the South Lecroy area reclamation plan, noting that it anticipated that the approved reclamation plan would require the installation of three new groundwater monitoring wells (UM , UM , and UM04-22) downgradient from the mine spoils area. 1 Upon approval of the plan by the Mining Division, the Solid Waste Management Division would approve the closure of the monitoring well network and, when the wells were properly closed, terminate the Permit. On December 8, 2004, the Mining Division approved the Lecroy area reclamation plan. In February of 2005, the ADEQ Mining Division by letter to Umetco approved the sampling plan for the three (3) monitoring wells as outlined in the Groundwater Conditions Report (submitted as an attachment to the Closure Report for the Permit), which recommended monitoring groundwater from these three reclamation monitoring wells for three (3) years and "[i]f no significant increasing trends in any of the mentioned constituents at the end of the three (3) year period, monitoring shall be terminated." As a result of the sampling analysis set forth in Umetco's October 2004 report and the December 2004 approval of the reclamation plan by the Mining Division, ADEQ by letter dated February 8, 2005, approved the decommissioning of twenty-nine (29) monitoring wells (including the entire seventeen ( 17)-monitoring well network associated with the landfill cells and some reclamation-related wells), and in March, 2005, Umetco completed the decommissioning of the wells. ADEQ's internal memorandum of May 2005 (echoing an earlier memo from 2002), documented ADEQ's positions: (1) that the remaining issues in the South Lecroy area were related to mine spoils, not landfill cells; (2) that the 2004 Groundwater Conditions Report was the last report required, as contamination at the Wilson Mine Site was primarily a remnant of mining activities and not related to landfill units; and, (3) that no further action relating to the landfill cells was recommended. ADEQ's May 2005 memo also documented that the Solid Waste Management Division staff had already coordinated turning over the groundwater monitoring efforts to the Mining Division, and the Mining Division would continue on-site groundwater monitoring through their ongoing mine reclamation activities at this site. 1 Note that the Lecroy area was never included in the reclamation plan associated with the mining permit; the mining permit predated the Regulation 15 requirement for reclamation of spoils. Reclamation of the Lecroy area has been accomplished largely under a CAO with the Water Division, focused on reclamation of spoils to improve surface water quality downstream from the spoils.

10 Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull P LLC Page4 In the 2005 Annual Solid Waste Permit Report submitted to ADEQ in April 2006, Umetco notified ADEQ that the monitoring wells for the landfill cells had been decommissioned. In 2010, when the Permit still had not been voided, Umetco provided additional documentation and summarized the justification to ADEQ for voiding the Permit in an October 28, 2010, letter from Umetco's counsel (Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull, & Burrow) to Roger Lawrence, Chief of the Solid Waste Management Division. Then, in February 2011, Umetco sent another letter to Mr. Lawrence requesting that ADEQ void the Permit providing additional details on how the Permit conditions related to groundwater had been met. This was followed by a request from ADEQ for additional documentation about the monitoring well decommissioning from Umetco's contractor, URS, provided detailed information about the 2005 monitoring well decommissioning in a letter to ADEQ dated August 24, Following this supplemental submission, no concerns or questions were expressed by ADEQ, and no further information was requested. Despite submission of the required documentation identified by ADEQ in the May 2004 meeting along with additional, detailed information as requested, the Permit has not been voided. This has resulted in repeated ADEQ Solid Waste Management Division requests for data from the monitoring well network after ADEQ approved closure of the well network, and periodic requests like the one in the most recent October 28, 2015 letter, for financial assurance for groundwater monitoring activities unrelated to the Permit. Path Forward Due to the passage of time and the change in ADEQ personnel since these activities began, it is unclear why the Solid Waste Permit has not been voided. The landfill cells were permitted, constructed, and closed in the timeframe. Monitoring continued for ten years, at which point Umetco and ADEQ's staff attempted to void the Permit in At that time, ADEQ reviewed the data and acknowledged that, "Contamination at the site is primarily the remnant of mining activities and not related to the landfill units, therefore no further action is required." Now, another decade has passed, and the Permit still has not been voided, despite numerous communications by Umetco documenting that the Permit conditions have been met. ADEQ and Umetco have been working on a way to clarify the documentation and summarize current obligations at the former Wilson Mine Site in a single Consent Administrative Order (CAO). Because a CAO is an enforcement mechanism, it is not ideal to provide sufficient flexibility to document Umetco's options and plans for remaining work, and attempting to negotiate the terms of this order have been time consuming. ADEQ has indicated that the Permit will be voided and Mining Permit reclamation obligations will be released in connection with entry of this CAO. Umetco believes the Solid Waste Permit should have been voided long ago in the normal course. Similarly, Umetco believes the reclamation obligations in the mining permit (which do not include work at South Lecroy) have been completed and should be released in the normal course. Umetco remains willing to clarify its remaining obligations at the South Lecroy in a CAO or other agreement, but does not see the need to link the voiding of

11 Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull P LLC Page 5 the Permit and the release of the Mining Permit Reclamation obligations, which have been completed, to that CAO or other agreement. Since 2005, even with the supporting documentation, ADEQ has failed to proactively move forward with termination of the Permit. The groundwater monitoring activities referred to in the October 28th letter are not an integral part of the Permit, which is well beyond the postclosure period, and there are no requirements or conditions left to be met under this Permit. All groundwater monitoring at the former Wilson Mine property is a function of site reclamation, not the Permit. Therefore, no change to the financial assurance mechanism is necessary, and there is no data available from the 17-well solid waste monitory network to submit, as all of those wells have been closed. Umetco again requests that the Permit be voided. Umetco remains committed to completing technically sound, long-term, sustainable and protective reclamation of the former Wilson Mine site. Umetco is willing to pursue clarification of its remaining obligations in a form acceptable to both ADEQ and Umetco. However, Umetco does not see the need to tie resolution of the decades old Permit to the current efforts to define the path forward for reclamation. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS & TULL PLLC William A. ckert III cc: James F. Strunk, Jr., Umetco Margaret Bazany, Counsel Becky Keogh, ADEQ Tammy Harrelson, ADEQ Will Montgomery, ADEQ

12 ADEQ A R K A N S A S Department of Environmental Quality October 28, 2015 James F. Strunk, Jr. UMETCO Minerals Corporation 2754 Compass Drive, Suite 280 Grand Junction, CO RE: Receipt Acknowledgement of the 2014 Annual Engineering Inspection Report UMETCO Class 3N Landfill, Hot Springs, Arkansas; Permit: 0268-S3N-Rl; AFIN: Document Number: 68469; Cross Reference: Dear Mr. Strunk: The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality- Solid Waste Management Division (ADEQ-SWMD) staff has received the 2014 Annual Engineering Inspection Report (AEIR) for the UMETCO Class 3N Landfill (Permit# 0268-S3N-Rl). The SWMD has updated our database with information contained in the AEIR. Please note that the SWMD has not performed a detailed technical review of the AEIR or the facility and as such only acknowledges the receipt of the AEIR. This acknowledgement in no way authorizes a change in the permit for the facility and does not represent an approval of any changes to the facility detailed within the AEIR. The certified 2014 AEIR cost estimate for financial assurance provided by the facility's professional engineer is $15, Please be advised that that UMETCO Minerals Corporation is required to provide to Ms. Susan Speake, ADEQ-SWMD Programs Branch Manager, the updated financial assurance to cover a11 required amounts. The groundwater monitoring activities at the facility is an integral part of your solid waste pennit and as such, your financial assurance should be upgraded to reflect costs associated with the groundwater monitoring at the site. Please call me at (501) should you have any questions regarding the above infonnation. ~ceretv~ ~Arjmandi Engineer II r; ~~ Bry~~~P.E. Engineer Supervisor cc: Susan Speake, Programs Branch Manager, SWMD Lori Burke, Inspector, SWMD Paul Crawford, FTN Associates Ltd. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 5301 NORTHSHORE DRIVE I NORTH LITTLE ROCK I ARKANSAS I TELEPHONE I FAX ww-w.odeq.stote.or.us