DRC-2017-002762 - 0901a068806e94fb

Public Participation Summary For Comments Received Between October 14 and December 21, 2011

License Renewal for Radioactive Material License No. UT1900479 Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. (EFRI) White Mesa Uranium Mill
San Juan County, Utah
March 2017

Public Comments were received from:

Mr. David C. Frydenlund (EFRI - Vice President Regulatory Affairs and Counsel)
Ute Mountain Ute Tribe

Ms. Sarah Fields (Uranium Watch/Glen Canyon Group/Sierra Club/Living Rivers)

Colorado Environmental Coalition, et al.
Mr. Armond Winter

Mr. Bradley Angel (Green Action for Health and Environmental Justice)
Mr. Steve Erikson

Note: Ms. Sarah Fields also made verbal comments at the Public Meeting held on November 10,
2011 at the Blanding Arts and Events Center in Blanding, Utah. Review of the transcript of
these verbal comments shows they are repetitive of her written comments submitted on
December 21, 2011. Consequently, this Public Participation Summary focuses on the December
21, 2011 written comments, as addressed below. Ms. Fields’ verbal comments at the November
10, 2011 Public Meeting can be found in the Official Transcript of the meeting.

2 | Page

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ALARA As Low As Reasonably Achievable
BAT Best Available Technology
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
cm Centimeter DOE U.S. Department of Energy
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
DRC Utah Division of Radiation Control
DWMRC Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control DUSA Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
EFRI Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ICTM Infiltration and Contamination Transportation Modeling Report
Kd Distribution Coefficient km Kilometer
LDS Leak Detection System
Licensee Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
LRA License Renewal Application
Mill White Mesa Uranium Mill in Blanding, Utah millirem One Thousandth of One Roentgen Equivalent Man
NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
pCi Picocurie; 10-12 curie
Permit Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit No. UGW370004
rem Roentgen Equivalent Man RML Radioactive Materials License RPP Respiratory Protection Program
RSO Radiation Safety Officer
RST Radiation Safety Technician
RWP Radiation Work Permit SER Safety Evaluation Report SOP Standard Operating Procedure
SPCC Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures
s Second
TDS Total Dissolved Solids TEDE Total Effective Dose Equivalent TEEA The 2017 Technical Evaluation and Environmental Assessment for the White
Mesa Uranium Mill RML Renewal
UAC Utah Administrative Code
UF4 Uranium Tetrafluoride U308 Uranium Oxide
yd Yard

3 | Page

BACKGROUND
The Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (DWMRC) licenses the White
Mesa1 Uranium Mill facility near Blanding, Utah under State of Utah Radioactive Materials
License (RML) No. UT1900479 (the License). The License, as amended, authorizes Energy
Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. (EFRI)2 to receive and process natural uranium-bearing ores,
specified alternate feed materials, and possess byproduct material in the form of uranium waste
tailings and other uranium byproduct waste generated by uranium recovery operations.
Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (now EFRI) submitted a renewal application for the License on
February 7, 2008. After reviewing the renewal application, the DRC requested public comment
on its proposed renewal license in the fall of 2011. A significant number of comments were
received during this public comment period. In response to these comments, the DRC did not
issue a final license renewal at that time. Instead, DRC management decided that the DRC staff
should perform new, independent MILDOS-AREA modeling. This new modeling effort
required significant time and additional data obtained from EFRI from 2007 through 2014. The
MILDOS-AREA modeling is now completed. In addition, during this time DWMRC staff has
also undertaken the following matters relating to the Mill:
• Completed three license amendments;
• Implemented various modifications and improvements to the Mill’s Reclamation and
Decommissioning Plan;
• Completed review and approval of the Corrective Action Plans for the nitrate and
chloroform plumes; and
• Worked with EFRI on changes to the Mill’s Environmental Monitoring Program.
Changes to the Decommissioning and Reclamation Plan and the Environmental Monitoring
Program include but not limited to:
• A new tailings cover design;

1 Beginning in 2004, the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Radiation Control
(DRC) regulated uranium mill operations in the State of Utah under agreement from the US Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. On July 1, 2015, responding to legislation enacted earlier that same year, the DRC merged with the former Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste to form the Division of Waste
Management and Radiation Control. To avoid confusion, and unless otherwise specified, the name
"Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control" will appear in this Public Participation Summary to refer to the Division of State government performing this regulatory function.
2 The entity that owns the White Mesa Uranium Mill Site has changed or gone by different names over
the life of the Mill, including International Uranium Corporation, Denison Mines Corp., and Energy Fuels, Inc. To avoid confusion, and unless otherwise specified, the name "Energy Fuels" will appear in
this Public Participation Summary to refer to the owner of the White Mesa Mill.
4 | Page

• A test period for the new cover in which the cover has been built on tailings Cell #2;
• Two new air monitoring stations (BHV-7 and BHV-8); and
• Forty-six new soil sampling locations.
All of the foregoing matters related to the pending license renewal, including significant new
data. Therefore, the license renewal process itself has been significantly delayed. This delay is
entirely consistent with the public participation process required by Utah law. Through the 2011
comments, a large number of valid technical issues were raised that required extensive
evaluation and consideration, including the gathering and evaluation of significant new data. At
this time, the DWMRC is now ready to issue a final license renewal that incorporates all of the
foregoing matters. In anticipation of that event, the DWMRC would like to provide its formal,
comprehensive responses to the public comments received during 2011.
Based on the foregoing, the following Public Participation Summary summarizes and provides
responses to public comments the DWMRC received regarding the License renewal application
during the comment period between October 14 and December 21, 2011. Individuals and
interested groups submitted written comments during the comment period (see Attachment 1).
In addition, this Public Participation Summary addresses verbal public comments received
during a public meeting held on November 10, 2011 in Blanding, Utah (see Attachment 2 for a
transcript of the meeting).
Mill Description
The White Mesa Uranium Mill processes natural uranium ores and alternate feed materials for
Uranium Oxide (U3O8). Over the course of time, the different owners of the Mill have
constructed five tailings or evaporation cells, two 40 acres (Cells 4A and 4B) and three larger
(Cells 1, 2, and 3) impoundments. Each received approval under the regulatory framework that
existed at the time of construction and each received approval as a tailings disposal or
evaporation cell. A description and use for each impoundment is described below: • Cell 1: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved Cell 1 in June of 1981.
Mill operators have restricted its use to management of fluids, including process water, storm
water, and water from groundwater pumping. The mill uses or reuses this water for its milling
process. This cell has never received tailings.
• Cell 2: The NRC approved Cell 2 in May of 1980. When the DWMRC assumed
regulatory authority over the mill in 2004, mill personnel had ceased placing tailings in this cell.
Closure began when disposal of tailings ended. Water is currently being removed from the cell
and installation of a final cover has begun. Installation of the platform fill and primary Radon
barrier placed in 2016 have increased pore pressures in the tailings mass sufficiently that fluid
available for extraction from the tailings mass has increased significantly. Available fluid must
5 | Page

continue to be extracted from the tailings prior to completion, installation and approval of final
cover in order to prevent settlement that could open pathways for infiltration of precipitation into
the tailings, and could decrease the effectiveness of the cover as a radon containment barrier.
Reclamation Plan Revision 5.1 is under consideration as part of the License renewal. Therefore,
the public has an opportunity to review and comment on Reclamation Plan Revision 5.1 during
the new comment period. This version of the design addresses the potential use of an
evapotranspirative (ET) cover system instead of the previously-approved rock-armor and clay
barrier system. The potential ET cover system is provisional, and a test cell constructed to the
design specifications is installed on a portion of Cell 2, along with the lower two layers (platform
fill/secondary Radon barrier and primary Radon barrier) on the entirety of Cell 2. The final
design of the ET cover will be adjusted to incorporate data gathered in connection with the test
cell, to maximize the cover’s long-term performance. Should the test section perform in an
unsatisfactory manner, the reclamation plan calls for reversion to the legacy rock-armor and clay
barrier cover system previously approved in Reclamation Plan 3.2.B, specifications for which
are also included in Reclamation Plan Revision 5.1.
• Cell 3: The NRC approved Cell 3 in September of 1982. Clean soil covers all but
approximately seventeen acres of Cell 3. The uncovered portions of Cell 3 remain as one of the
Mill's two operating cells. The cell has reached its capacity for tailings disposal, and no longer
receives tailings. It currently accepts byproduct material such as in situ leach recovery [aka:
11e.(2)] waste for direct disposal, an activity authorized under the Mill's license. EFRI receives
byproduct material for direct disposal in trucks rather than by slurry. A cell must have a
sufficient depth of tailings prior to offloading trucks in the cell in order to protect the liner
system, leak detection system, etc. Therefore, mill personnel have continued placing byproduct
material in Cell 3 rather than moving that activity to Cell 4A. For that reason, and consistent
with its License, Energy Fuels has indicated that it intends to continue to use Cell 3 for direct
byproduct disposal until those materials can go into Cell 4A.
• Cell 4A: The NRC licensed Cell 4A as a uranium tailings disposal cell in 1990. EFRI
either did not use Cell 4A, or used it only for temporary storage of vanadium raffinate until,
pursuant to DWMRC requirements, it received a retrofit with a new liner and leak detection
system. The DWMRC approved that retrofitting in September 2008. Cell 4A currently receives
tailings for disposal.
• Cell 4B: The DWMRC licensed Cell 4B as a tailings cell in June of 2010. The mill uses
this cell currently for management of process water. The cell has never received tailings.
Summary of Regulatory Activities at White Mesa Uranium Mill
The NRC originally licensed the White Mesa Mill in August, 1979. The NRC transferred
regulatory authority for this license to the State of Utah in August, 2004, after Utah obtained
Agreement State status for 11e.(2) byproduct material with the NRC.
6 | Page

Energy Fuels holds Radioactive Materials License No. UT1900479 (License) and Ground Water
Discharge Permit No. UGW370004 (Permit)3 for the White Mesa Mill. Energy Fuels is also
subject to a "Corrective Action Plan for Nitrate," dated December 12, 2012 and a "Corrective
Action Plan for Chloroform," dated September 14, 2015.
Energy Fuels Resources must conduct various kinds of environmental monitoring at the White
Mesa Mill. The DWMRC makes the reports for these sampling events available to the public on
the DWMRC website (http://www.deq.utah.gov/businesses/E/energyfuels/whitemesamill.htm).
The reports which are routinely placed on the DWMRC website are as follows:
• Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Reports;
• Semi-Annual Effluent Monitoring Reports;
• Annual Tailings Wastewater Sampling Report;
• Annual Seeps and Springs Sampling Report;
• Quarterly Chloroform Monitoring Reports; and,
• Quarterly Nitrate Monitoring Reports.
Energy Fuels’ ground water monitoring program is comprehensive. The mill currently contains
75 monitoring wells, screened in the shallow aquifer, which are routinely monitored. This
includes 31 primary (MW-series monitoring wells) which are required to be sampled quarterly
for a large suite of monitoring parameters including heavy metals, nutrients, general chemistry,
radiologics, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). EFRI addresses exceedances of Ground
Water Compliance Limits according to source assessment studies and reporting requirements
listed in the Permit.
The DWMRC began in May, 1999, prior to achieving Agreement State status, taking split
samples during sampling events at the mill. Split sampling allows for a check on field sample
collection procedures, laboratory analysis, and data quality assurance and quality control.
The DWMRC performs approximately 18 routine inspections at Energy Fuels each year, 14
more than required as an Agreement State and 17 more per year than the NRC did when it
regulated the facility. Inspections cover areas of health physics, ground water protection, and
engineering controls and design. The Director has issued and resolved 36 Notices of Violation
since 2004. Additional inspections also occur as appropriate for reported incidents. Finally, the
DAQ inspects the facility as a "minor source" approximately once every three years.
3 The Permit is issued under the authority of the Utah Water Quality Act, Utah Code Ann. § 19-5, but is
issued by the Director of the DWMRC as provided by Utah Code Ann. § 19-5-102(6).
7 | Page

Radioactive Materials License and Ground Water Permit: How They Work Together and
Their Renewals
Energy Fuels holds both a Radioactive Materials License and a Groundwater Discharge Permit
for the White Mesa Mill. Although the reader should review the contents of the License and
Permit for a detailed understanding, the following table provides a comparative summary of
requirements
Table 1
Radioactive Materials License No.
UT1900479 (License)
Ground Water Discharge Permit No.
UGW370004 (Permit)
• Reclamation and
decommissioning plans,
including cell cover closure requirements.
• Requirements for alternate feed
materials.
• Surety requirements.
• Requirements for disposal of material and equipment.
• Limitations on disposal of in-situ
leach waste and other 11e.(2)
disposal.
• Environmental sampling and reporting requirements
(incorporates ground water
permit requirements by
reference).
• Leak detection program for all tailings and evaporation Cells.
• Cell settlement monitoring
Production limitations
• Ground water compliance limits.
• Ground water monitoring
requirements. • Seep and spring monitoring
requirements.
• Analytical procedures for
samples.
• Reporting requirements. • Cell, other impoundment and
storage area groundwater-related
performance and design
standards.
• Tailings wastewater sampling.

The NRC last renewed the License in March, 1997 for a period of ten years. Energy Fuels
submitted a timely application for renewal on February 28, 2007. Under R313-22-36(1), with a
timely application, the License continues in effect until the Director makes a final determination.
The DWMRC issued a draft license renewal for public comment on October 14, 2011. After
consideration of the comments submitted, the Director determined that this renewal required
additional analysis and, to meet new statutory requirements for public comments associated with
license challenges, commenters should have new opportunities for public comment. See Utah
Code Ann. § 19-1-301.5(4).
8 | Page

The DWMRC originally issued the Ground Water Permit on March 8, 2005 for a period of five
years. Energy Fuels submitted a timely application for renewal of the Permit on September 1,
2009. Under R317-6-6.7, with a timely application, the Permit has been administratively
extended until the Director makes a final determination. A Statement of Basis and revised
Permit are included as Attachment F of the Technical Evaluation and Environmental
Assessment.
Introduction
The purpose of this document is to summarize public comments received between October 14
and December 21, 2011 by the DWMRC regarding the EFRI license renewal for License RML
No. UT1900479. Seven letters containing written comments were received during the comment
period. One individual also made oral comments at the public hearing held on November 10,
2011at the Blanding Arts and Events Center in Blanding, Utah.
The topics addressed in public comments received by the DRC (including both oral and written
comments) are summarized in Table 2. These represent the topics or general categories that the
comments were organized into. Following Table 2, the DWMRC will provide its specific
responses to these comments. The comments received entirely are contained in Attachment A of
the PPS. Due to the large amount of comments, the DWMRC has numbered each comment for
reference purposes.
Table 2. Summary of Topics Addressed in Comments Received by DWMRC
Topic
Commenter
Da
v
i
d

C
.

F
r
y
d
e
n
l
u
n
d

(E
F
R
I
)
Ut
e

M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n

U
t
e

T
r
i
b
e

Sa
r
a
h

F
i
e
l
d
s

Co
l
o
r
a
d
o

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

Co
a
l
i
t
i
o
n

Ar
m
o
n
d

W
i
n
t
e
r

Br
a
d
l
ey

A
n
g
e
l

St
e
v
e

E
r
i
k
s
o
n

Written and Related Oral Comments Received
Comment Topic #01: General Comments X X X X X
Comment Topic #02: Suggested Changes that were
incorporated into the RML X X
Comment Topic #03: Availability of Documents
Associated with the Renewal X X
9 | Page

Table 2. Summary of Topics Addressed in Comments Received by DWMRC
Topic
Commenter
Da
v
i
d

C
.

F
r
y
d
e
n
l
u
n
d

(E
F
R
I
)
Ut
e

M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n

U
t
e

T
r
i
b
e

Sa
r
a
h

F
i
e
l
d
s

Co
l
o
r
a
d
o

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

Co
a
l
i
t
i
o
n

Ar
m
o
n
d

W
i
n
t
e
r

Br
a
d
l
ey

A
n
g
e
l

St
e
v
e

E
r
i
k
s
o
n

Comment Topic #04: The DWMRC Review Process and
Documenting the Review in the SER. X X
Comment Topic #05: Regulatory Authority of the
DWMRC X
Comment Topic #06: Public Comment Process X X X
Comment Topic #07: Compliance History X
Comment Topic #08: Compliance with Regulatory
Limits and the Atomic Energy Act X X
Comment Topic #09: Lack of resources at the DWMRC
and DEQ to adequately regulate the Mill X
Comment Topic #10: Environmental Assessment and
MILDOS-AREA Modeling X X
Comment Topic #11: Environmental Monitoring and
Reporting X X X
Comment Topic #12: NEPA X X
Comment Topic #13: Endangered Species X
Comment Topic #14: Traffic X
Comment Topic #15: Impacts to Cultural and Historical
Sites
Comment Topic #16: Fugitive Dust X
10 | Page

Table 2. Summary of Topics Addressed in Comments Received by DWMRC
Topic
Commenter
Da
v
i
d

C
.

F
r
y
d
e
n
l
u
n
d

(E
F
R
I
)
Ut
e

M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n

U
t
e

T
r
i
b
e

Sa
r
a
h

F
i
e
l
d
s

Co
l
o
r
a
d
o

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

Co
a
l
i
t
i
o
n

Ar
m
o
n
d

W
i
n
t
e
r

Br
a
d
l
ey

A
n
g
e
l

St
e
v
e

E
r
i
k
s
o
n

Comment Topic #17: The Land Use Survey X
Comment Topic #18: The USGS Report X X
Comment Topic #19: Approval of Reclamation Plan 5.1 X
Comment Topic #20: Surety X X
Comment Topic #21: Tailing Cell Construction and
Liner Integrity X X
Comment Topic #22: Cover Design (including Radon
and ICTM) X X
Comment Topic #23: Tailing Cell Leak Detection X
Comment Topic #24: DAQ and the Mills Air Approval
Order X
Comment Topic #25: Compliance with NESHAPS X X
Comment Topic #26: Groundwater (Including
Chloroform and Nitrate plumes) X X
Comment Topic #27: Stormwater Best Management Plan X
Comment Topic #28: Alternate Feed (Including
Thorium) X X X
Comment Topic #29: Alternate Feed Circuit X X
Comment Topic #30: Alternate Feed Storage X
11 | Page

Table 2. Summary of Topics Addressed in Comments Received by DWMRC
Topic
Commenter
Da
v
i
d

C
.

F
r
y
d
e
n
l
u
n
d

(E
F
R
I
)
Ut
e

M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n

U
t
e

T
r
i
b
e

Sa
r
a
h

F
i
e
l
d
s

Co
l
o
r
a
d
o

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

Co
a
l
i
t
i
o
n

Ar
m
o
n
d

W
i
n
t
e
r

Br
a
d
l
ey

A
n
g
e
l

St
e
v
e

E
r
i
k
s
o
n

Comment Topic #31: Radiation Safety Program X
Comment Topic #32: Occupational Air Monitoring and
Derived Air Concentrations X
Comment Topic #33: 11e.(2) or ISL Disposal X

Before providing specific responses, the DWMRC would like to thank the commenting parties
for their time and effort in connection with renewal of the Permit. The DWMRC recognizes that
License and associated operations are subject to complex technical, permitting, and legal
requirements and that operations at the Mill potentially impact various interests and stakeholders.
The DWMRC’s goal is to ensure that operations under the License are conducted in compliance
with all applicable legal and technical requirements.
Comment Topic #01: General Comments
Several commenters made comments that are in the nature of general observations rather than
specific comments on the renewal permit that require a response in this Public Participation
Summary. Therefore no changes were made to the RML based on these general observations nor
are they addressed in detail here. Examples of these general comments include, but not limited
to, suggested changes to the SER and RML by EFRI and comments supporting the addition of
the Land Use Survey requirement.
Comments associated with this response are: #2; #7; #8; #9; #10; #22; #23; #24; #25; #48; #49;
#50; #51; #52; #53; #56; #59; #70; #74; #79; #89; #137; #145; #153; #156; #157; #180; #199;
#200; #212
Comment Topic #02: Suggested Changes that were incorporated into the RML
Several commenters found errors and made suggested changes in the identified License
Conditions of the RML. Where appropriate, the DWMRC made the recommended changes to
12 | Page

the RML. Examples of these errors included, but are not limited to, the misspelling of Oklahoma
and EFRI letting the DWMRC know they do not have a Corporate Radiation Safety Officer.
Comments associated with this response are: #1; #3; #4; #5; #6; #138; #140; #146; #152; #154;
#155
Comment Topic #03: Availability of Documents Associated with the Renewal
A couple of the commenters mentioned that they felt that the documents associated with the
White Mesa Uranium Mill RML Renewal were not readily available for public review. These
comments are not accurate. All of the documents associated with the License Renewal were
posted on the DWMRC website. In addition, other documents associated with the White Mesa
Mill are available to the public on the DWMRC webpage that include compliance history,
construction projects, groundwater sampling reports, and other required reports. NRC guidance
documents are found on the NRC webpage. The DWMRC believes the information posted on the
webpage allows a person to understand the activities that are going on at the mill. Based on the
information that is present. Since the 2011 Public comment period, the Utah Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) now has the “EZ Records Search” link on the web page to allow
people to search for documents in DEQ’s electronic filing program. If there is other information
a person seeks, they can still request it through the Utah Government Records Access and
Management Act (GRAMA).
Comments associated with this response are: # 87; #88
Comment Topic #04: The DWMRC Review Process and Documenting the Review in the
SER
A couple of the commenters made comments regarding the 2011 SER to the effect that it did not
meet the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act and that it did not communicate clearly what
was reviewed by the DWMRC. The SER was written after all the “open issues” were resolved to
the Director’s satisfaction. Any shortcomings or “incomplete information” with the LRA
submittal was documented in the three rounds of DWMRC Interrogatories dated November 24,
2008, July 2, 2009, and December 28, 2009 respectively. The three rounds of DWMRC
Interrogatories can be found on the DWMRC website. The Interrogatories specified what
criteria was being used (i.e. NRC Guidance) to determine whether the information provided was
adequate to meet regulatory compliance. The draft license showed revisions to the RML as
appropriate based on the review of the license renewal application and any unresolved issues,
excluding groundwater, which was addressed during the Permit Renewal Application review
The DWMRC conducts regular inspections of the Mill regarding Radiological Safety,
Groundwater and Engineering concerns. DWMRC Staff determines if EFRI keeps its
commitments made in the Renewal Application, requirements found in State Rule and Federal
Regulation and conditions in the radioactive material license during regular inspections of the
13 | Page

Mill. Some observations made during these inspections were also used in the decision process of
renewing the RML.
*Note*- the 2007 Renewal Application, the Interrogatories, the Responses to the Interrogatories,
and the 2011 Safety Evaluation Report can be found at:
https://deq.utah.gov/businesses/E/energyfuels/permits/denisonlicensereapp.htm
Comments associated with this response are: #89; #90; #91; #92, #93; #165; #204
Comment Topic #05: Regulatory Authority of the DWMRC
One commenter wanted the State to clearly define that it has regulatory authority over
radioactive materials. The State of Utah maintains authority to regulate uranium mills within its
borders. The State of Utah received regulatory authority as an agreement State from the NRC in
2004. NRC is authorized to enter into an agreement with the State of Utah in the Atomic Energy
Act under section 274. The State of Utah’s Legislature granted authority to regulate radioactive
materials, including uranium mills, in the State of Utah’s Radiation Control Act (Title 19,
Chapter 3 Part1), in the Utah Administrative Code R313-12-2 and the RML’s opening
paragraph.
The same commenter also wanted the DWMRC to add a license condition to the RML that
would allow the DWMRC to revoke an RML. The DWMRC already has rules regarding the
ability to revoke a radioactive material license. Specifically, R313-14-15(3) allows the Director
to issue an order revoking the license or other actions. Therefore, DWMRC does not need to add
a provision in the RML at this time.
Comments associated with this response are: #11; #38; #49.
Comment Topic #06: Public Comment Process
Some commenters stated that the license renewal process denied the public full opportunity to
provide public comment. In this matter, all legal requirements relating to the public comment
process were satisfied. The DWMRC conducts Public Comment Periods in accordance with
State of Utah Rules found in the Utah Administrative Code R313-17-2 Administrative
Procedures; Public Notice and Public Comment Period, the Director is required to give public
notice of major licensing actions. Major licensing actions are defined in R313-17-2(1)(a).
Therefore, the public is guaranteed public comment periods allowing the opportunity to
participate in important licensing actions regarding this particular radioactive material license.
In this matter, the Public Notice for the 2011 public comment period was published in the
Deseret News, Salt Lake Tribune, and the San Juan County Recorder. In addition, the
information was posted on the Division’s web page and sent out through the Division’s
LISTSERV. In addition, any RML that is for uranium milling or 11e.(2) disposal also has to
follow R313-17-4 Special Procedures for Decisions Associated with Licenses for Uranium Mills
14 | Page

and Disposal of Byproduct Material. This Rule was implemented after the 2011 Public
Comment Period. The Rule outline for the public hearing process (42 USC § 2021(o)(3)(A)) that
is required by the Atomic Energy Act for this type of licensee was therefore fully satisfied in this
matter.
Comments associated with this response are: #14; #15; #84; #139; #213
Comment Topic #07: Compliance History
Several of the commenters stated that the compliance history of the White Mesa Mill was not
fully reviewed and analyzed as part of the RML renewal review. This is not correct. The
compliance history was reviewed during the DWMRC review of the license renewal application.
For several years, the DWMRC has placed the compliance history for the White Mesa Uranium
Mill on the Licensee’s web page on the Utah DEQ website. This History documents all
enforcement actions (i.e. Notices of Violation, Enforcement Discretion and etc.) for the Mill the
DWMRC has issued since taking over regulatory jurisdiction in 2004.
Comments associated with this response are: #87; #96, #125, #166
Comment Topic #08: Compliance with Regulatory Limits and the Atomic Energy Act
One commenter stated that the DRC did not follow guidelines on being compliant with the AEA
in doing an environmental assessment and holding a public meeting. In the renewal application,
EFRI submitted Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) which describe how the Mill is going to
operate to maintain regulatory compliance. DWMRC Staff reviewed the Mill’s SOPs and
through the interrogatory process worked with EFRI to resolve any concerns that were identified
during the review of the renewal application. Compliance with regulatory limits is determined
and documented during site inspection and review of effluent and groundwater monitoring
reports by DWMRC Staff. The Mill is allowed to make adjustments to its SOPs through the
SERP committee and its own ALARA audits. SERP committee reports and ALARA audit
reports are reviewed annually by DWMRC staff.
EFRI also submitted an Environmental Report and a MILDOS-AREA modeling analysis. DRC
staff reviewed both of these documents and found them adequate to demonstrate compliance
with regulatory requirements. The Environmental Report prepared and submitted by EFRI was
very thorough and similar to a NEPA style review. It discussed the impact of Mill operations on
the surrounding areas of the Mill. Long-term impacts of the disposal of uranium mill tailings
were considered by the NRC during its review and approval of the original January 30, 1978
Environmental Report for the White Mesa Uranium Project. In addition, impacts from the
commercial scale operation of the site were previously evaluated in the Final Environmental
Statement (NUREG 0556) (NRC, 1979). The DWMRC has the ability to title its environmental
analysis as they deem appropriate. Such titles may include but are not limited to: Technical
Analysis, Statement of Basis, Safety Evaluation Report, Technical Assessment, or
15 | Page

Environmental Assessment. The purpose of the report required by UAC R313-24-3 is to advise
the public of the environmental issues of concern.
In a letter (DRC-2017-001282) dated February 22, 2017 to the DWMRC, the State of Utah’s
Office of the Attorney General wrote a response addressing the issue of compliance with the
AEA by the State of Utah conducting an independent environmental analysis. It was concluded
“there is also no language in the AEA or any other authority that requires an Agreement State to
perform completely independent environmental analysis. It is acceptable for an Agreement State
to review and analyze environmental analysis submitted by a licensee. Thus, the existing Utah
rules are fully consistent with federal requirements.”
A Public Hearing will also be included as part of the 2017 public comment period for the
renewal of the RML and Ground Water Discharge Permit for the Mill.
Comments associated with this response are: #94; #95; #96: #97; #98; #99; #101; #102;,#103;
#104; #105; #106; #107; #136; #164; #167; #168; #172; #173; #194; #198; #205; #207; #208;
#210
Comment Topic #09: Lack of resources at the DWMRC and DEQ to adequately regulate
the Mill
One commenter expressed concern that the DWMRC does not have the adequate resources to
appropriately regulate the Mill. The DWMRC refutes the claim that “DEQ fails to maintain a
physical and inspection presence at the facility.” The DWMRC committed to performing
quarterly inspections throughout the year. This minimum inspection frequency has been followed
since the fall of 2004. Furthermore, based on activities at the facility, DWMRC’s physical
presence has been more than once per quarter. Groundwater compliance/activities, Engineering
compliance/activities and radiation safety inspections allows for reasonable and adequate
physical presence at the site.
Currently the Uranium Mill Program has two Engineers, two Hydrogeologists, and one Health
Physicist. This organizational structure will allow the DWMRC to review submittals in a timely
manner and allow staff resources to be allocated to compliance and licensing actions for the
regulatory oversight program. No change will be made to the License.
Comments associated with this response are: #12; #13; #17
Comment Topic #10: Environmental Assessment and MILDOS-AREA Modeling
One commenter stated that the DRC did not follow guidelines on being compliant with the AEA
by not creating stand-alone analysis of the environmental report. This comment is incorrect.
The DWMRC is not required to create a stand-alone analysis of the environmental report. The
DWMRC is well aware of the environmental analysis/report requirements of UAC R313-24-3
and the need to require compliance with these requirements. Here, EFRI provided an
16 | Page

Environmental Report in Volume 4 of its 2007 License Renewal Application. The DWMRC
provided its review of the Environmental Report in the October 2011 SER. This is all that is
required by the AEA. The DWMRC has the ability to title its environmental analysis as they
deem appropriate. Such titles may include but are not limited to: Technical Analysis, Statement
of Basis, Safety Evaluation Report, Technical Assessment, or Environmental Assessment. The
purpose of the report required by UAC R313-24-3 is to advise the public of the environmental
issues of concern.
Even though the DWMRC is not required to do so under the AEA, after the 2011 Public
Comment period, the DWMRC chose to perform an independent MILDOS assessment which is
being made available for public comment and is included as Attachment A of the Technical
Evaluation and Environmental Assessment. The DWMRC also included alternate feed materials
in its MILDOS-AREA modeling.
Comments associated with this response are: #67; #114; #115; #116; #118; #126; #127; #172;
#185; #186; #187; #190; #191; #195; #197
Comment Topic #11: Environmental Monitoring and Reporting
Several commenters had comments regarding the Mill’s Environmental Monitoring program and
the reporting of the environmental monitoring results. These comments are misplaced. The
Mill’s Semi-Annual Effluent Monitoring program is based on the NRC Regulatory Guide 4.14
RADIOLOGICAL EFFLUENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AT URANIUM
MILLS. In Regulatory Guide 4.14, it states that this monitoring is done “To ascertain whether
the regulatory requirements of the NRC (including 10 CFR Part 20 dose limits, release limits,
and the "as low as is reasonably achievable" requirement), mill license conditions, and the
requirements of 40 CFR Part 190 - Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear
Power Operations, have been met. These requirements are also found in State of Utah’s UAC
Title R313. No change will be made to the SER.
An example of the type of monitoring that is done at the Mill is with Thermoluminescent
dosimeters. These dosimeters are used at the Mill’s monitoring station to document gamma
results and are reported in the Semi-Annual Effluent Monitoring Reports. The Semi-Annual
Effluent Monitoring Reports are reviewed by the DWMRC when they are submitted. Below in
Table 3 are the reported results from 2015 and 2016. As demonstrated below, the annual gamma
exposure from the Mill is below the regulatory limit of 100 mrem/year (R313-15-301(1)(a)). The
Semi-Annual monitoring reports are found on the DWMRC webpage at:
http://www.deq.utah.gov/businesses/E/energyfuels/whitemesamill.htm

17 | Page

Table 3: Gamma Monitoring Results
Monitoring
Stations
2015 2016
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr
BHV-1 2.3 0.4 12.3 11.4 5.7 3.3 5.0 4.0
BHV-2 2.9 2.0 2.3 4.3 0.0 1.9 1.8 4.8
BHV-3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
BHV-4 0.2 0.0 6.1 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2
BHV-5 3.2 3.1 10.1 13.1 3.9 2.4 0 2.1
BHV-6 0.0 4.9 6.1 0.6 1.0 0.0 0 0.4
BHV-7

0.6 0 7.2 3.3 0.0 0 0 4.3
BHV-8 0.0 0 9.5 3.4 0.0 1 0.8 1.8
** Results are reported in mrem/quarter
*** Annual Limit for an individual member of the public is 100 mrem/year
Comments associated with this response are: #39; #125; #135; #190; #215;
Comment Topic #12: NEPA
Several commenters expressed their opinion that the review of the Mill’s renewal application did
not conform to the National Environmental Policy Act. As stated in Title II Section 102 of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), NEPA only applies to Federal Agencies.
Therefore, EFRI is not required to show compliance with NEPA because:
a. The State of Utah has not adopted the NEPA regulations to demonstrate
environmental compliance with uranium mills in UAC R313-24, nor are they
required;
b. The White Mesa Uranium Mill is not located on federally controlled lands;
c. Federal funds are not being used to finance the White Mesa Uranium Mill
operations; and
d. The White Mesa Uranium Mill is not regulated by a federal agency.
18 | Page

In other words, NEPA applies to actions by “any Federal agency” having jurisdiction over a
proposed “Federal or federally assisted undertaking.” As the “undertaking” at issue here is a
License Renewal of the Uranium Mill that is a private entity and receives no federal assistance.
Because the site is regulated by a State of Utah agency, NEPA is not applicable. However, the
DWMRC did perform an environmental analysis as required by UAC R313-24-3(d)(3).
Comments associated with this response are: #100; #209; #211
Comment Topic #13: Endangered Species
One commenter expressed concerns with endangered species and if a review was completed as
part of the license renewal application. In connection with its environmental analysis, the
DWMRC did compare the original 1978 Environmental Report and the listed endangered and
threatened species list for San Juan County, Utah dated January 6, 2012 found on the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service website. This was included in the original License Renewal package that
went out for public comment in October 2011.
Table 4
1978 Final Environmental Report January 6, 2012
Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name
Black-footed ferret Mustella nigripes Black-footed ferret Mustella nigripes
Sheathed deathcamas Zigadenus vagintus Bonytail chub Gila elegans
Spearleaf buckwheat Erigonum
humivagans
California condor Gymnogyps
californianus
Drab phacelia Phacelia indecora Colorado
pikeminnow
Ptychocheilus lucius
Isely milkvetch Astragalus iselyi Greenback cutthroat
trout
Oncorhynchus
clarkia stomias
Cronquist milkvech Astragalus
cronquistii
Gunnison sage-
grouse
Centrocercus
minimus
Kachina daisy Erigeron kachinensis Humpback chub Gia cypha
American peregrine
falcon
Falco pereginus
anatum
Isely milkvetch Astragalus iselyi
Spotted bat Euderma maculatum Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis
19 | Page

lucida
Abert’s Squirrel Sciurus aberti Navajo sedge Carex specuicola
Razorback sucker Xyrauchen texanus
Southwest willow
flycatcher
Empidonax traillii
extimus
Western yellow-
billed cuckoo
Coccyzus
americanus
occidentalis

The Black-footed ferret and Isely milkvetch are the only two listed species on both lists. All of
the other species listed in the 1978 Environmental Report are no longer listed as an endangered
species or were only being considered in 1978 and were never added to the endangered species
list. None of the Species listed as Endangered or Threatened in San Juan County are found in the
immediate vicinity of the Mill and therefore are not a compliance issue. In EFRI’s
Environmental Report impact on wildlife a review of endangered species in the area was also
evaluated.
Comments associated with this response are: #179
Comment Topic #14: Traffic
One commenter had comments regarding the impact traffic to and from the Mill has on the local
community due to the Mill. In response to comments received, the DWMRC did compare the
transportation numbers found in the original 1978 Environmental Report to current
transportation numbers. The 1979 Final Environmental Statement assumed that ore shipments
would first go to the two buying stations and then be transported to the Mill. While this
assumption has not proven to be the practice, this change is immaterial because the truck routes
have not changed. The report also assumed a 160 mile radius from each buying station and
22,670 trucks hauling 680,000 tons of ore per year to the Mill site. The 1991 LRA did not report
transportation data. Transportation numbers are variable and therefore change from year to year.
For example, transportation numbers from the Mill in 2010 were 8,060 loads of natural ore and
208 loads of alternate feed ore. These loads brought in 123,563 tons of natural ore and 7,644
tons of alternate feed ore in 2010. This is 36% of the number of truck loads and 19% of the total
number of tons from original estimates from the Mill site projection in 1979. Therefore, the
environmental impacts from transportation of ore have decreased over time. The U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) has jurisdiction over transportation issues. The DWMRC
does not have jurisdiction over ore shipments until the shipments enter the restricted area of the
Mill. Yellowcake shipments become DOT jurisdiction when they leave the Mill’s property.
20 | Page

Based on the foregoing, traffic impacts were adequately considered and do not require any
changes to the License.
Comments associated with this response are: #174; #175; #176; #177
Comment Topic #15: Impacts to Cultural and Historical Sites
One commenter expressed concerns over protection of cultural and historical site on and adjacent
to the Mill’s property. The potential impact of adjacent cultural sites is adequately addressed.
Impacts to cultural and historical sites within the proposed White Mesa Uranium Project were
previously evaluated in Appendix E of the Final Environmental Statement (NUREG 0556)
(NRC, 1979). In addition, License Condition 9.7 specifies what must be done when a cultural or
historical site is encountered. EFRI meets its obligations to cultural resources by meeting the
requirements in License Condition 9.7.
One commenter expressed the concern that an archeological study was not done for the
construction of Tailings Cell 1. The State of Utah obtained regulatory authority to administer the
Uranium Mill program in Utah from the NRC in August 2004, and the DWMRC included the
conditions previously approved by the NRC in the License. Tailings Cell 1 was constructed
prior to the DWMRC receiving regulatory authority. Additionally, License Condition 9.7 is a
remnant from the original NRC issued RML. The NEPA process, which applied during the time
that the Mill was regulated by the NRC, requires that an archeological and historical
investigation be performed. Therefore, the DWMRC understands that an appropriate survey was
conducted for Tailings Cell 1 at that time. In any event, that is a question for the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, not the DWMRC. However, if new construction activities occur at the
site (such as a tailings cell), License Condition 9.7 will require the licensee to administer a
cultural resource inventory; similar to what was completed for Tailings Cell 4B.
Comments associated with this response are: #141; #142; #143; #144; #170; #201; #214
Comment Topic #16: Fugitive Dust
Many commenters voiced a concern about the potential of fugitive dust coming from the Mill’s
ore pad which has both native and alternate feed ore on it. The DWMRC reviewed the Mill’s
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on dust management during the License Renewal and
found it to be adequate to meet legal requirements and to protect contiguous properties. No
change will be made to the License. In addition, the DWMRC has reviewed the Semi Annual
Effluent Monitoring Reports which includes particulate air sampling. The effluent releases for
particulate air sampling have not exceeded the regulatory limits. Below in Table 5 are the
monitoring results from 2016. For other sampling results from previous years, please see the
Semi-Annual monitoring reports which are found on the DWMRC webpage at:
http://www.deq.utah.gov/businesses/E/energyfuels/whitemesamill.htm
21 | Page

Table 5: White Mesa Mill Air Monitoring Station for Particulates
Results for Uranium-Natural

Monitoring
Station
1st Qtr,
2016
Result
(uCi/ml)
2nd Qtr,
2016
Result
(uCi/ml)
3rd Qtr,
2016
Result
(uCi/ml)
4th Qtr,
2016
Result
(uCi/ml)
2016
Average
(uCi/ml)
Effluent
Contration
Limit
(uCi/ml)
BHV1 2.00E-16 1.10E-16 1.10E-15 9.80E-16 5.98E-16 9.00E-14
BHV2 7.00E-16 2.00E-16 4.20E-16 4.10E-16 4.33E-16 9.00E-14
BHV4 5.00E-16 2.90E-15 6.20E-15 4.10E-15 3.43E-15 9.00E-14
BHV5 1.40E-15 3.90E-15 7.10E-15 5.10E-15 4.38E-15 9.00E-14
BHV6 7.00E-16 1.20E-14 6.90E-15 8.90E-15 7.13E-15 9.00E-14
BHV7 8.00E-16 1.50E-15 2.60E-15 1.60E-15 1.63E-15 9.00E-14
BHV8 2.00E-16 1.10E-15 1.20E-15 1.20E-15 9.25E-16 9.00E-14
Results for Thorium-230
Monitoring Station 1st Qtr, 2016
Result
(uCi/ml)
2nd Qtr, 2016
Result
(uCi/ml)
3rd Qtr, 2016
Result
(uCi/ml)
4th Qtr, 2016
Result
(uCi/ml)
2016 Average
(uCi/ml)
Effluent Contration
Limit
(uCi/ml)
BHV1 3.00E-17 7.00E-17 8.70E-17 7.80E-17 6.63E-17 2.00E-14
BHV2 6.00E-18 3.00E-17 6.90E-17 1.90E-17 3.10E-17 2.00E-14
BHV4 2.00E-17 5.00E-17 4.40E-16 3.00E-16 2.03E-16 2.00E-14
BHV5 6.00E-16 4.00E-16 7.60E-16 6.60E-16 6.05E-16 2.00E-14
BHV6 1.00E-16 1.00E-16 4.00E-16 3.30E-16 2.33E-16 2.00E-14
BHV7 1.00E-16 9.00E-17 1.70E-16 1.20E-16 1.20E-16 2.00E-14
BHV8 2.00E-17 1.00E-16 8.40E-17 6.00E-17 6.60E-17 2.00E-14
Results for Radium-226
Monitoring
Station
1st Qtr,
2016
Result
(uCi/ml)
2nd Qtr,
2016
Result
(uCi/ml)
3rd Qtr,
2016
Result
(uCi/ml)
4th Qtr,
2016
Result
(uCi/ml)
2016
Average
(uCi/ml)
Effluent
Contration
Limit
(uCi/ml)
BHV1 3.00E-16 9.00E-16 1.80E-16 1.30E-16 3.78E-16 9.00E-13
BHV2 8.00E-17 3.00E-16 8.10E-17 5.00E-17 1.28E-16 9.00E-13
BHV4 5.00E-17 4.00E-16 2.20E-15 4.80E-16 7.83E-16 9.00E-13
BHV5 6.20E-15 6.00E-16 1.10E-15 9.60E-16 2.22E-15 9.00E-13
BHV6 9.00E-16 6.00E-15 7.20E-16 4.80E-16 2.03E-15 9.00E-13
BHV7 1.00E-15 9.00E-16 4.10E-16 2.50E-16 6.40E-16 9.00E-13
BHV8 3.00E-16 1.90E-15 3.30E-16 8.50E-17 6.54E-16 9.00E-13
Results for Lead-210
22 | Page

Monitoring Station 1st Qtr, 2016 Result
(uCi/ml)
2nd Qtr, 2016 Result
(uCi/ml)
3rd Qtr, 2016 Result
(uCi/ml)
4th Qtr, 2016 Result
(uCi/ml)
2016 Average (uCi/ml)
Effluent Contration Limit
(uCi/ml)
BHV1 1.40E-14 9.60E-15 1.20E-14 2.20E-14 1.44E-14 6.00E-13
BHV2 1.50E-14 1.30E-14 1.00E-14 2.10E-14 1.48E-14 6.00E-13
BHV4 1.70E-14 8.80E-15 3.40E-16 2.20E-14 1.20E-14 6.00E-13
BHV5 2.30E-14 1.50E-14 2.90E-16 2.10E-14 1.48E-14 6.00E-13
BHV6 1.70E-14 2.10E-14 3.20E-15 2.10E-14 1.56E-14 6.00E-13
BHV7 1.70E-14 1.50E-14 2.80E-15 1.50E-14 1.25E-14 6.00E-13
BHV8 1.60E-14 1.10E-14 7.60E-15 1.40E-14 1.22E-14 6.00E-13
Results for Thorium-232
Monitoring
Station
1st Qtr,
2016
Result (uCi/ml)
2nd Qtr,
2016
Result (uCi/ml)
3rd Qtr,
2016
Result (uCi/ml)
4th Qtr,
2016
Result (uCi/ml)
2016
Average
(uCi/ml)
Effluent
Contration
Limit (uCi/ml)
BHV1 2.00E-18 3.00E-18 9.50E-18 4.80E-18 4.83E-18 2.00E-14
BHV2 4.00E-18 4.00E-18 5.20E-17 2.20E-18 1.56E-17 2.00E-14
BHV4 2.00E-18 5.00E-18 7.10E-18 4.50E-18 4.65E-18 2.00E-14
BHV5 6.00E-17 3.00E-18 3.00E-17 1.30E-17 2.65E-17 2.00E-14
BHV6 1.00E-17 4.00E-18 1.20E-17 9.50E-18 8.88E-18 2.00E-14
BHV7 5.00E-18 3.00E-18 5.50E-18 4.80E-18 4.58E-18 2.00E-14
BHV8 2.00E-18 2.00E-18 4.70E-18 3.20E-18 2.98E-18 2.00E-14

Comments associated with this response are: #39; #41; #63; #158; #159
Comment Topic #17: The Land Use Survey
Several commenters stated that the new License Condition 12.3, which will require the Mill to
do a Land Use Survey, is inadequate. The purpose of the Land Use Survey Report is to
document the changes to land use surrounding the Mill property. This survey will help EFRI
identify potential routes of exposure to nearby residents. The DWMRC believes that License
Condition 12.3 is adequate to meet the intended purpose, when implemented in connection with
all other provisions of the License.
Comments associated with this response are: #34; #35; #51
Comment Topic #18: The USGS Report
Prior to the 2011 Public Comment Period for the renewal of the Mill’s RML, the U.S. Geological
Survey released a report on the White Mesa Uranium Mill. There were several comments
23 | Page

received regarding the 2011 U.S. Geological Survey Report (USGS Report). See
http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2011/5231/. Following is a response to the most significant issues raised
in that report.
Off-site Particulates: Regulatory Background
Many of the comments received assume that it is illegal or unsafe for any contaminants to blow
from the Mill site to off-site areas. Completely eliminating blowing contaminants is not realistic
for an industrial facility and complete elimination is not required by law. R313-15-301(1)(a) and
(b) establish the standard:
(1) Each licensee or registrant shall conduct operations so that:
(a) The total effective dose equivalent to individual members of the public from the licensed
or registered operation does not exceed one mSv (0.1 rem) in a year, exclusive of the dose
contributions from background radiation, from any medical administration the individual has
received, from exposure to individuals administered radioactive material and released, under
Rule R313-32 (incorporating 10 CFR 35.75 by reference), from voluntary participation in
medical research programs, and from the licensee's or registrant's disposal of radioactive
material into sanitary sewerage in accordance with Section R313-15-1003; and,
(b) The dose in any unrestricted area from external sources, exclusive of the dose
contributions from patients administered radioactive material and released in accordance with
Rule R313-32 (incorporating 10 CFR 35.75 by reference), does not exceed 0.02 mSv (0.002 rem)
in any one hour . . . .
In addition, off-site effluent standards are established as specified in R313-15-302. See
especially R313-15-302(2)(b)(i):
(2) A licensee or registrant shall show compliance with the annual dose limit in Section
R313-15-301 by:
. . .
(b) Demonstrating that:

(i) The annual average concentrations of radioactive material
released in gaseous and liquid effluents at the boundary of the
unrestricted area do not exceed the values specified in Table II
of Appendix B of 10 CFR 20.1001 to 20.2402, (2010), which is
incorporated by reference . . . .
24 | Page

See http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/part020-appb.html for the
provisions of Table 6. See the DWMRC MILDOS-AREA modeling results found in Attachment
A of the TEEA.
Sediment Results
The USGS Report identifies seven off-site sediment samples that have uranium concentrations
that are in excess of local background concentrations determined by the USGS. All of those
samples were taken in areas northeast of the Mill but still on EFRI property. (USGS Report,
Figure 33.) Analytical results for uranium for those samples are listed in Table 6. As also
indicated in Table 4, USGS performed statistical analyses on those sample results and
determined that four of those samples could be attributed to "natural weathering" rather than "ore
migration."
Table 6: Off-Site Sediment Samples that Exceed Highest Uranium Background Level*
Sample Site Caused by “Ore
Migration” or
“Natural
Weathering”**
U (ppm)*** V (ppm)***
MW2-S2A Ore Migration 6.6 73
MW2-S3A Ore Migration 5.9 73
MW2-S4A Natural Weathering 5.7 71
MW2-S5A Ore Migration 4.9 79
MW2-S7A Natural Weathering 3.7 58
MW2-S8A Natural Weathering 3.9 66
MW2-S9A Natural Weathering 3.6 60
* See USGS Report, Figure 33. Highest background level is 3.6 ppm, from location WMS-32;
see USGS Report, Figure 31 for map of location.
** See USGS Report, Figure 38.
*** Values are from USGS Report, Appendix 2, p. 110.
One other site with analytical results below background levels was also identified as having
uranium that came from "ore migration" rather than "natural weathering." For that site, WM2-
S10A, the analytical results show 2.6 ppm Uranium and 56 ppm Vanadium.
25 | Page

These results do show that additional sampling and analysis is appropriate to determine whether
the requirements outlined in Part 2.1 are being met. That additional study should also address at
least the following:
• Appropriate background levels. USGS's Study was similar to a screening study and three
background samples are appropriate for that purpose. For regulatory purposes, we would
generally require more background samples in order to ensure that the area has been
appropriately characterized. The appropriate background level would have to be selected
after considering the range and variation of the background sample results, and also after
consideration of the relevance of background concentrations established during the
National Uranium Resource Evaluation program.
• Additional sampling and analysis for better characterization. Where there is evidence of
off-site contamination, seven samples would not ordinarily be considered a sufficient
number of samples to characterize that contamination. Additionally, the nature of the
uranium (e.g., whether it is present alone or with daughter products) will affect the
analysis.
• Whether contamination is continuing. The nature of the regulatory response will vary
depending on whether the contamination is from a continuing source. There are a
number of potential sources for the contamination that would not be continuing: past
practices at the Mill that have since been improved, potential historical sources, such as
the ore-buying station at Shirttail Junction and ore trucks delivering to and exiting from
that station. One way to determine whether the contamination is continuing is to collect
particulates at air effluent sampling sites. That collection and analysis show that there is
currently very little off-site migration of air effluent, suggesting that contamination may
be from historical rather than current practices. Since 2011, the Mill has increased the
number of soil samples to 52. A map of the soil sample locations can be found in
Appendix I of 2nd Half 2015 Semi-annual Effluent Monitoring Report. Please refer to the
following link below
http://www.deq.utah.gov/businesses/E/energyfuels/docs/2016/03mar/SAER%20July%20-
%20Dec%202015%20-%20Final.pdf.
• The source of the contamination. To be effective, a regulatory response must address the
source of contamination. If contamination is continuing from the Mill site, it could be
from wind-blown particulates from the ore pad or the tailings cells, or from stack
emissions. Practices at the Mill have changed since the site opened as an ore station in
the late 1970's There were also historical sources of potential radionuclide contamination
in the area that are no longer in operation: there was an ore buying station located south
of Shirttail Junction, and there were also trucks of ore going to and from that station. In
contamination investigations, it is necessary to establish causation. DWMRC would also
26 | Page

want to consider whether the USGS's determination that most of the exceedances over
background resulted from "natural weathering" rather than "ore migration" continues to
makes sense in the light of additional sampling information.
• The actual and potential uses of the affected off-site area. Understanding use is an
important component of evaluating risk. The risks have been compared to the EPA’s
residential risk screening levels, although there are no residents in that area.
In the meantime, DWMRC has evaluated sample results against guidance used by the EPA to
determine whether additional, immediate action is warranted at this time. Specifically, it has
looked at the following results from the USGS Report:
• The value of all of the uranium samples ranges from 2.6 ppm (WM2-S10A) to 6.6 ppm
(MW2-S2A). This includes samples that are below background and samples that USGS
determined were the result of "natural weathering" rather than "ore migration."
• The value of all of the vanadium samples ranges from 56 ppm (WM2-S10A) to 79 ppm
(MW2-S5A).
Residential soil screening levels
The EPA has established screening levels for residential soils for hundreds of contaminants
based on specified exposure assumptions that the EPA determined were reasonable for a
residential scenario. Levels at or below EPA screening levels are considered to be “no action”
levels -- levels where impacts are very unlikely to be seen. For cancer risks, levels between “no
action” levels and 100 times “no action” levels are considered to warrant further study to
determine whether the levels present result in a significant risk, based on site-specific
considerations.4
For uranium, the EPA’s no action level for a residential scenario is 2.07 ppm for cancer risks5 ,
and 230 ppm for non-cancer risks6. For vanadium, EPA’s no action level for a residential
scenario is 390 ppm for non-cancer risks; there are no expected cancer risks from vanadium in its
naturally-occurring form.
All of the off-site values in Table 3 are below screening levels except that all off-site samples
exceed the “no action” level for uranium for cancer risks. DWMRC has determined that it is
appropriate to gather additional site-specific data about the area rather than initiating an
immediate response to address cancer risk for uranium for several reasons:

4 This statement is based on EPA’s cancer risk range, which is 10-6 (one in one million excess cancer risk, the “no
action” level), to 10-4 (one in 10,000), which is the level EPA uses for immediate action. 5 See http://epa-prgs.ornl.gov/radionuclides/download/res_soil_rad_prg_august_2010.pdf. 6 See http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-
concentration_table/Generic_Tables/docs/composite_sl_table_run_NOV2013.pdf.
27 | Page

• Although the analytical results in Table 3 above exceed EPA’s “no action” level, they are
all substantially lower than 207 ppm, the level at which the EPA immediate action would
be triggered.
• The assumptions behind the “residential” scenario for cancer risk evaluation are likely to
be very conservative for this site. For example, a resident is assumed to be on site for
350 days per year, 24 hours per day, for 70 years, including six years as a child. Adults
are assumed to ingest 100 mg of contaminated soil per day, and children are assumed to
ingest 200 mg of contaminated soil per day as a child. All of these assumptions are
conservative for the area where samples were collected, since the land in that area is
uninhabited.
• The USGS data by itself is insufficient, for the reasons described above, to support denial
of a license renewal.
Soil levels established to protect ground water
The EPA also establishes levels for soils to ensure that ground water is protected from soil
contaminants. For uranium, that level is established at 14 ppm to ensure that the ground water
meets MCLs (30 µg/L). All of the off-site values are below this level.
For vanadium, the level for soil contamination to protect ground water is established at 63 ppm7.
Most of the samples taken by USGS are above this level. DWMRC has determined that it is
appropriate to gather additional site-specific data about the area rather than initiating an
immediate response to address risks to ground water from vanadium for several reasons:
• The levels found were very near the EPA soil level for protection of ground water. Just
as for cancer risks, the EPA will not take immediate action at sites that are near that level,
but will instead study a site further to determine what the site-specific risks are. The EPA
does not take immediate action unless the levels present are significantly greater than the
EPA soil level for protection of ground water.
• As for the residential scenario discussed above, EPA’s screening levels are based on
generic inputs rather than site-specific ones. Some of the generic inputs are designed to
be conservative. For example, the analysis assumes that the source of contaminants is
infinite. The specific levels that would be protective of ground water east of the White
Mesa site will have to be derived using site-specific values.
Sagebrush Results
The primary purpose of the sagebrush study was to determine where there were areas of eolian –
wind-blown – transport of materials from the Mill site. (USGS Report, p. 57.) The sagebrush
7 Id.
28 | Page

study was not intended to, and cannot, provide compliance information that can be used in a
regulatory context. However it did provide insight regarding the spatial distribution of wind-
blown uranium and vanadium contaminants resulting from Mill operations. Samples taken in the
northeast part of the study area did display elevated uranium and vanadium concentrations and
that spatial pattern does correlate with the sediment uranium and vanadium concentrations. It
should also be noted that of the 12 samples taken in the eight eastern sample grids, only one –
Site 15-1 – was clearly elevated above samples taken in less affected areas.8 That area is near
sediment samples taken at the location WM2-S2A; see Table 5 and associated text above.
Because the twigs and unwashed leaves of each of the sagebrush were reduced to ash and
analyzed together (USGS Report, p. 7), there is no way to distinguish between contaminants
from dust deposited on the leaf surface, which will be derived from wind-blown dust, and
contaminants coming up through the root system. This information would be critical to
determining the causal mechanism for the spatial concentration patterns observed, and how to
respond as a regulator.
To be clear, these were not faults with the USGS sagebrush study. The Study was designed only
to show the spatial patterns of contaminants in and on local vegetation.
In summary, the sagebrush study provides valuable information for the purpose for which it is
intended: it shows where elevated uranium and vanadium vegetation concentrations exist that
appear to coincide with elevated sediment concentrations. It is still unclear if this is due to wind
distribution of contaminants onto plant tissue, root uptake from contaminated soils, or both.

Ground Water Sampling Results
The USGS sampled wells and springs in the area. The USGS Report concluded that the
234U/238U and 235U/238U activity ratio values at all well and spring sampling sites other than
Entrance Spring are indicative of natural sources of uranium and are not evidence of offsite
migration of uranium. USGS Report, Figure 45, p. 68.
The primary ground water concern raised by the USGS Study, then, was with respect to periodic
elevated levels of uranium in Entrance Spring. Entrance Spring is a seep on the east side of
Highway 191, offsite from the Mill's property. It is considered to be a surface expression of
ground water.
Two of USGS's eight samples showed results that are greater than the maximum contaminant
level of 30 ug/L.9 One of the last six Energy Fuels monitoring results also showed a level
8 Because the purpose of the study was to show wind-blown contaminant distribution, USGS did not identify and
sample background areas. 9 See USGS Report, Appendix 1, at p. 99, Entrance Spring samples collected on 12/13/07 and 3/13/08.
29 | Page

elevated above 30 ug/L. As the USGS Report indicated, these results could be due to nearby
sediment contamination that is concentrated in the arroyo where the spring is located, or it could
be due to ground water contamination.
The DWMRC does not agree that this data suggest a need for corrective action at this time for a
number of reasons:
• Both the USGS (USGS Report, p. 99) and Energy Fuels' results
(http://www.radiationcontrol.utah.gov/Uranium_Mills/denison/seepsspringsampling_rpt.
htm) have been temporally inconsistent, with a few samples above the drinking water
standard but more of them below the standard. More monitoring is needed to determine
whether there is a trend or an explanation for the inconsistent results.
• Spatial and temporal trends must be considered. As the first water elevation map in
Attachment G shows, Entrance Spring was directly downgradient from the Wildlife
Ponds in 2012. As described in General Response, Part 1.5, those ponds caused ground
water mounding centered at the Wildlife Ponds, and at least 24 feet of new saturation.
Two of the most likely explanations of contamination in Entrance Spring are that the new
saturation of those previously unsaturated zones would increase the ground water and
contaminant travel speed and would also cause leaching of previously unsaturated natural
uranium into that ground water, or that contaminants in and around the wildlife ponds
were mobilized and entered the ground water. Entrance Spring is nearly directly
downgradient from the ground water mounding caused by the Wildlife Ponds. Because
those ponds have recently been drained, the ground water elevation and direction has
changed as seen in the second map in Attachment G, which is from the most recent
report. A downward trend would be expected in the future if the saturation of previously
unsaturated zones is the source; the length of time for that trend to be seen would depend
on the speed of the ground water.
• The mechanism for contamination must be understood in order to ensure effective
corrective action, if that becomes necessary. There are several mechanisms for
contamination that should be considered if further monitoring demonstrates a problem;
most of these were acknowledged by USGS:
• The ground water could be contaminated from a source somewhere along its
travel route, either from Mill activities, from natural uranium minerals in the
vadose zone between the former location of the wildlife ponds and the spring, or
from another source;
• Contamination from particulates wind-blown from the Mill could be mobilized by
precipitation and affecting the ground water, which later emerges at the spring; or,
30 | Page

• Contamination from particulates that were deposited on or near Highway 191 as a
result of historical activities (e.g., ore trucks) could be moved by storm water to
locations in the immediate vicinity of Entrance Spring, which could in turn affect
the water after it emerges.
• More study is also necessary to determine whether the results are sufficient to
have statistical confidence.
• Entrance Spring is up-gradient or cross-gradient from the tailings cells so
contamination at Entrance Spring does not suggest leaking from tailings cells that
would require more immediate action.
The results do not warrant additional corrective action at this time. In coming years, the
DWMRC will collect split samples at the location to determine if there is any trend.
Comments associated with this response are: #43; #46; #47; #196
Comment Topic #19: Approval of Reclamation Plan 5.1
There were several comments regarding the Mill’s Reclamation and Decommissioning plan.
Specifically the cover design for the Mill’s tailing cells and when the Mill would be required to
place that cover. The DWMRC remains vitally interested in achieving final cover and
decommissioning on all tailings cells whose available storage volume is exhausted. The
DWMRC also recognizes that final cover cannot be placed until dewatering has progressed to the
point that differential settlement within the tailings and cover materials will not compromise the
cover’s ability to exclude precipitation from infiltrating into the tailings mass, and carrying
contaminants through any imperfections in the liner system to the soils below the cell. The pace
of dewatering is largely dictated by natural processes that cannot be accelerated without
potentially compromising the integrity of the liner. The DWMRC, in cooperation with EFRI, is
taking an aggressive approach to accelerate the dewatering process in ways that will not
jeopardize the liner system. This approach includes placing a Radon barrier on Cell 2 along with
a test section of a more modern, evapotranspirative (ET) design for final cover than the
traditional rock-armor erosion barrier. It is hoped that surcharging the tailings in this manner
will accelerate the dewatering process, and provide a workable means of accelerating the
covering of Cell 3 once its period of activity comes to a close. Early indications are
encouraging; since installation of the primary Radon barrier on Cell 2, fluid available and the
resulting pace of dewatering have increased markedly.
Details of the features of the new ET cover design have been made available for public
inspection and comment on the Division webpage as part of the review process for Reclamation
Plan Revision 5.1 and is also included as Attachment A of the Technical Evaluation and
Environmental Assessment. Any future changes to design modifications of the Reclamation
31 | Page

Plan will require review and approval by the DWMRC Director. Except as noted above, no other
changes will be made to the License.
Comments associated with this response are: #19; #30; #31; #32; #72; #73; #75; #76; #77; #78;
#133; #134; #203; #204

Comment Topic #20: Surety
There were several comments regarding the amount and adequacy of the Mill’s Surety fund.
License Condition 9.5 (LC 9.5) addresses the Mill’s surety. The surety is an amount of money
set aside to cover the cost of final reclamation and closure in the event the Licensee is unable or
unwilling to do so. The last paragraph of LC 9.5 outlines that the surety shall also include the
cost of groundwater remediation. If EFRI happens to go out of business before the Mill is
reclaimed and closed, the surety needs to have the appropriate amount of money to complete
groundwater remediation. Therefore, the requirement shall remain as written in LC 9.5.
The surety is based on the approved Reclamation Plan and approved changes to the facility, and
is reviewed and approved on an annual basis by the DWMRC (See L.C. 9.5 and L.C. 9.11). The
existing Reclamation Plan will be replaced when Reclamation Plan 5.1 is approved. When the
RML went to public comment in 2011, the DWMRC put restrictions on the Mill in the License
until approval of Reclamation Plan 5.0 (see License Condition 9.1). Reclamation Plan 5.0 was
made available to the public when it was put on the DWMRC website, and the Ute Mountain Ute
Tribe (the Tribe) did provide comments regarding Reclamation Plan 5.0, as well as the related
surety in part IV of the Tribe’s comments.
Reclamation Plan Revision 5.1 retains much of Reclamation Plan 5.0, but has incorporated
several improvements and refinements. The DWMRC is affording the Licensee an opportunity
to perform an in-situ demonstration of the performance of the tailings cell cover system proposed
in Reclamation Plan 5.1. The surety will reflect both the ET cover system proposed in the
Reclamation Plan 5.1 and the rock armor cover system previously approved for use in the event
the proposed cover system fails to perform as planned. Adjustments to the plan will be made to
reflect deficiencies identified during the demonstration study. Comments regarding the
Reclamation Plan 5.1 will be addressed concurrently with comments received during the license
renewal comment period in 2017.
On November 2, 2016 the DWMRC approved the 2016 surety in the amount of $22,580,768.
The DWMRC considers the Tribe’s comments regarding surety during surety reviews.

The surety estimate must be based on the work being done by a third party. The DWMRC
routinely checks that quotes included in the surety submittals reflect market rate, and that they
32 | Page

comprise no more than 5% of the total of the surety amount. Any erroneous quotes,
corresponding to “inside pricing,” only available to the mill, are investigated and corrected.
Ground water and any applicable change of windblown contamination cleanup costs will need to
be part of the new Reclamation Plan and the corresponding surety estimate.
Pertaining to RRD Letter Table 3.6, twenty-five percent (25%) is the current minimum DWMRC
acceptable surety estimate contingency (NUREG-1757, Volume 3 (2003) as adopted in R313-22-
35(3)(h)). Based on available information, the 25% contingency factor is conservative and
adequate.
Existing licensing, bonding, and UDEQ contract administration costs are based on median
figures for such work as of in the 2016 edition of Facilities Construction Cost Data by R.S.
Means, and the current existing approved reclamation plan design.
The long term care fund is a regulated exact figure, required and derived via 10CFR40 Appendix
A, Criterion 10, as in effect and updated on March 4 annually.
Benchmarking of costs is not used by DWMRC as an acceptable method to determine surety
estimates. It is not tailored to specific characteristics for each site.
Escalating of costs to a future date has not been a part of DWMRC practice, as surety cost
estimates are required by rule to be updated annually, and the facility closure is not expected to
take more than two years from the time decommissioning begins. However, the DWMRC is
studying the issue of cost escalation and the most appropriate means of estimating escalation
(which of the many escalation factors published in the industry) is most appropriate.
Comments associated with this response are: #2; #14, #43, #78; #80, #81, #82, #83, #85, #86
Comment Topic #21: Tailings Cell Construction and Liner Integrity
Several comments expressed concern on how the tailing cells were constructed and the ability of
the liners to prevent leakage. Approved by the NRC, Impoundment Cells 1, 2, and 3 have a
single polyvinyl chloride flexible membrane liner and an integral leak detection system. The
leak detection technology used would not meet current Best Available Technology standards but
did at the time of the original design. The NRC initially approved Cell 4A. The DWMRC
required retrofit of Cell 4A, and approved Cell 4B were approved by the DWMRC. The design
and construction of Cells 4A and 4B meet improved design and construction standards under
Best Available Technology requirements for liners and leak detection as those standards existed
at the time.
The leak detection systems in the older cells would not meet current Best Available Technology.
However, leaks detected in June, 2010 in the Cell 1 liner demonstrated that the technology as
employed does work. Plant personnel lowered the level of liquids in Cell 1, which holds process
33 | Page

and storm water liquids, to allow inspection and repair of the liner. Upon reintroducing liquid
into the cell, the leak detection system again had fluids from the cell. A repeat repair, completed
in the 2nd Quarter of 2012 succeeded, a conclusion that the DWMRC verified during an on-site
inspection on June 6, 2013.
Comments associated with this response are: #19; 20; #21; #33; #60; #61; #62; #72; #73; #121
Comment Topic #22: Cover Design (including Radon and ICTM)
A few comments relate to the final cover design, suggesting that it is not adequate and that
inactive (full) cells should be decommissioned and closed as soon as possible. The reclamation
plan contains provision for placement of an engineered multi-layer cover system over every
tailings cell and disposal area as each is filled and decommissioned. The purpose of the cover is
to minimize both infiltration of water into the tailings mass below and emanation of Radon from
the tailings to the atmosphere. A secondary benefit of the cover is to reduce “shine”, or release
of radioactivity through shielding.
In lieu of the approved rock armor design, the Licensee has proposed to install a state-of-the-art
evapotranspirative cover system (ET cover) over the tailings cells and disposal area upon closure
of those elements. The design incorporates, from bottom to top, a layer of approximately 2.5 feet
of platform fill/secondary Radon attenuation barrier, a four-foot layer of primary Radon
attenuation barrier, a 3.5-foot layer for water storage/biointrusion prevention/ frost protection/
secondary Radon attenuation, and a 0.5-foot layer for erosion protection. Plant variety and target
density have been provided in the Reclamation Plan. The design reflects infiltration and
contaminant transport modeling, and was completed in consultation with recognized specialists
in the field.
The DWMRC staff has not reached consensus with the Licensee on the design of the proposed
ET cover system. The DWMRC staff has reservations about the success to expect in achieving
the plant variety and density required to meet the objectives of the cover system. To answer the
staff’s concerns, the Licensee has designed a test cell in which has been constructed the full
cover system as designed. Instrumentation will allow monitoring of precipitation received and
infiltration through the cover system, as well as facilitating observation of the success of plant
growth and establishment. As the test section produces data, the design can be evaluated, and, if
necessary, adjusted.
The infiltration and contaminant modeling focused on demonstrating the long-term ability of the
cover to protect nearby groundwater quality. As a result, the ET cover is not part of the license
renewal and there will be future opportunities for the public to review the data and provide
comments on the ET cover proposal in the future, as new data becomes available.
Comments associated with this response are: #75; #132
34 | Page

Comment Topic #23: Tailings Cell Leak Detection
Several comments were made about the tailing cells potentially leaking and the ability of the leak
detection systems in each tailings cell to detect leaks. The DWMRC expressed similar concerns
in the DWMRC February 11, 1999 letter regarding groundwater contamination resulting from
potential seepage from the tailings impoundments. These concerns were fully resolved with the
2008 University Report. This is documented in the referenced September 2009 Statement of
Basis (pages 2 - 4).
When the State of Utah obtained Agreement State status from the NRC in August 2004 for the
uranium mill regulatory program; tailings management system Cells 1, 2, and 3 were already
constructed, as follows:
• Cell 2 was completed in May of 1980
• Cell 1, was completed in June 1981
• Cell 3, was completed in September, 1982
These cells consist of a single PVC FML liner and have limited leak detection systems (LDS).
Although, it would be great if Cells 1, 2, and 3 had the same construction as Tailings Cells 4A
and 4B, the DWMRC does not have the authority to mandate that EFRI retrofit existing facilities
using Best Available Technology (BAT). Therefore, the Director was left with only one option
and required EFRI to install eight new monitoring wells immediately adjacent to the tailings cells
(September 2004 Statement of Basis (pages 27 and 28). Because the LDS at Cells 1, 2, and 3 are
expected to be less sensitive to detect any potential cell leakage than current BAT, these
monitoring wells can be the “first line of defense” to detect any cell leakage. These monitoring
wells were installed in 2005 and are routinely sampled by EFRI. To date no evidence of cells
leakage has appeared in any of the eight monitoring wells. See also Comment Topic #21:
Tailing Cell Construction and Liner Integrity, regarding the repair of leaks that developed in the
Cell 1 liner. Note that the leak detection system worked as designed.
Comments associated with this response are: #17; #18; #34; #121
Comment Topic #24: DAQ and the Mills Air Approval Order
Several commenters made comments about the White Mesa Mill’s regulatory oversight
regarding its air approval order. The Mill’s Air Approval Order is not regulated by the DWMRC
and is not part of this licensing action. However, the White Mesa Mill is a minor source under
Utah Air Quality rules. The DAQ approval order establishes a number of requirements:
• It limits Energy Fuels to 720,720 tons of ore processing annually;
• Limits on fuel consumption for the two dryers of 267,960 MMBtu heat input;
35 | Page

• Limits on the superior boiler of 220,752 MMBtu heat input;
• Visible emission limitations on ore loading areas (15% opacity);
• Visible emission limitations on the vanadium circuit (15% opacity);
• Visible emission limitations on baghouses and boilers (10% opacity);
• Visible emission limitations on all other points (20% opacity);
• Stack testing limits for PM10 on the vanadium circuit scrubber stacks and the yellowcake
dryer stacks;
• Requirements that Energy Fuels use only propane or liquid natural gas in the dryers,
calciner, furnaces and boilers;
• Numerous requirements to minimize fugitive dust from unpaved operational areas, haul
roads and storage piles;
• Requirements that the ore grizzly is be enclosed on 3 sides and have water sprays to
minimize fugitive dust; and,
• Requirements for minimization of fugitive dust from the tailings retention areas.
The DAQ also oversees the application of NSPS Subpart Dc, which applies to Energy Fuels'
boiler.
As one of approximately 1,300 "minor sources" in Utah, the DAQ is required pursuant to its
EPA delegation under the Clean Air Act to inspect the White Mesa Mill once every five years.
The DAQ has been able to inspect the facility once every three years.
The DWMRC does not rely on the Licensee’s Air Approval Order regarding wind dispersal or
fugitive dust. The Licensee has requirements it must adhere to under the RML and the Air
Approval Order. Based on the DWMRC’s review of the requirements we do not believe there are
regulatory gaps. Environmental Air monitoring station results around the facility have
demonstrated the Licensee is in compliance with effluent release limits. Furthermore, the
majority of the alternate feed materials located at the Mill cannot be dispersed by wind, because
they are stored in 55-gallon drums or Supersacks until they are processed through the Mill. The
Mill staff conducts regular inspections of the drums to identify any leaking drums. If any
leaking drums are identified, they are placed in over pack drums. The DWMRC inspectors also
look for damaged or leaking drums when conducting inspections at the facility. DWMRC
acknowledges there are two alternate feed materials that are not stored in drums that are stored
on the ore pad. Again, analytical results of the air monitoring stations around the Mill facility
document that there is very little radioactive material leaving the facility’s boundary. Effluent
36 | Page

monitoring results are compared to Effluent Concentration Limits (ECL’s) on a Semi-Annual
basis and have been found well below the ECL’s. In addition, the Mill does have a fugitive dust
procedure and an alternate feed management procedure in place that is adequate to address this
concern. The DWMRC addressed alternate feed management and dust control issues in the first
two rounds of Health Physics Interrogatories for the License Renewal. A summary of these
inquiries were addressed in the SER. All associated documents including the Licensee’s
responses are located on the DWMRC Web page and were made available to the public during
the review process.
Comments associated with this response are: #11; #40; #41; #42; #52; #76
Comment Topic #25: Compliance with NESHAPS
A large number of comments were in regard to the Mill’s compliance to NESHAP regulations.
The DWMRC has no authority to enforce the requirements of Subpart W – NESHAP.
Compliance with NESHAP is through DAQ and the EFRI Air Quality Approval Order. As a
result, NESHAP compliance falls outside the scope of this permit renewal. Nevertheless, the
DWMRC understands that the Mill is in compliance with NESHAP requirements, generally
described below.
The NESHAPs regulation, Subpart W, limits a uranium mill to two tailings cells in operation at
any given time. The White Mesa Mill has one evaporation cell and four cells licensed and
permitted to receive tailings. However, only two of those cells are in “operation.” This position
is based on the definition of "operation" as found in 40 CFR 61.251(e):
"Operation means that an impoundment is being used for the continued placement of new
tailings or is in standby status for such placement. An impoundment is in operation from the day
that tailings are first placed in the impoundment until the day that final closure begins."
Cell 1: This cell is currently used for liquid management and evaporation, and no tailings have
been placed in the cell. It is therefore not considered operational under the definition of
“operation.”10
Cell 2: Tailing placement has ceased and a temporary cover has been placed over it. Final
closure activities (dewatering) have begun and the cell is no longer active. This cell is also not in
operation under the definition of that word.
Cell 3: This cell is active. Temporary cover placement has begun and when the cell is full and
temporary cover has been placed over the cell, dewatering of the cell will begin.

10 In a separate NESHAPs rulemaking action regulating uranium mill tailings, EPA described uranium mill tailings:
“Uranium mill tailings are sand-like wastes that result from the processing of uranium ore. Tailings are stored in
large surface impoundments, called piles . . . . ” Preamble for EPA’s final rule action relating to 10 CFR Part 61,
Subpart T, 59 FR 36280 (July 15, 1994). The use of the term “disposal” in 40 CFR 61.252 also suggests that the rule
writers were not contemplating applying the rule to a surface impoundment.
37 | Page

Cell 4A: This cell is active and receiving tailings.
Cell 4B: This cell is currently used for liquid management and evaporation, and no tailings have
been placed in the cell. It is therefore not considered to be in operation under the definition of
that term.
Comments associated with this response are: #54; #55; #117; #128; #160; #161; #162; #163;
#192
Comment Topic #26: Groundwater
There were several comments regarding various groundwater issues relating to the site,
including, but not limited to, groundwater contamination, monitoring and reporting. The
DWMRC believes that these comments have now been adequately addressed, as described more
fully below. License Condition 9.12 requires the Licensee to have a valid Ground Water Quality
Discharge Permit (Permit). Groundwater contamination issues are not addressed in the RML, but
through the Permit. When the State of Utah applied for agreement state status, the State
proposed to use the Utah Ground Water Quality Protection regulations (UAC R317-6) to
regulate groundwater at the Mill. The NRC agreed with this proposal, which is documented in
the August 27, 2003 Volume 68 of the Federal Register pages 51,516 through 51,518 and in the
State of Utah’s application to become an agreement State for 11e.(2) material.
Under the RML, the Permit, and the Corrective Action Plans, Energy Fuels has completed and
monitors a total of 75 ground water monitoring wells, generally described as follows:
• 28 monitoring wells placed to detect any leaks from the tailings cells. The leak detection
systems for Cells 1, 2, and 3 use older, less sophisticated technology, the DWMRC
required installation of eight new wells adjacent to the tailings cells in 2005. These wells
perform as a first line of defense to detect any tailings cell leakage. These supplemented
the original seven the NRC required. When the DWMRC undertook oversight of the
facility, it also began requiring Energy Fuels to sample on-site up-gradient and far down-
gradient wells. The construction of Cells 4A and 4B led to installing additional wells.
• 38 monitoring wells associated with characterizing the chloroform groundwater
contamination, as described below.
• 9 monitoring wells associated with characterizing the nitrate groundwater contamination,
as described below.
This monitoring network has increased since the State of Utah took over regulatory
responsibilities from the NRC from 16 to 75 monitoring wells. The DWMRC posts sampling
results on-line, including maps of monitoring well locations in quarterly groundwater monitoring
reports, found at:
38 | Page

http://www.deq.utah.gov/businesses/E/energyfuels/whitemesamill.htm
The DWMRC evaluates the monitoring results for each well that is sampled for compliance with
standards for 38 different constituents and for trends in the data that may show a need for further
action.
Some of the commenters expressed concern about potential leakage from Cell 1, Cell 2, and Cell
3. There is no evidence of leakage from these cells. In addition to other lines of evidence,
DWMRC staff look for increasing trends for four indicator parameters (chloride, uranium,
fluoride, and sulfate). These indicators will appear in sample results at elevated and increasing
levels if cell leakage has occurred. These constituents serve well as indicators because:
• The process water (tailings solution) contains significant concentrations of them;
• They are more mobile (non-reactive) indicators in groundwater and will show up at
monitoring wells sooner than other available indicators; and
• Should demonstrate increasing concentrations and an upward trend in groundwater
concentration.
Regional groundwater in the shallow aquifer moves across the Mill site to the south-southwest.
To understand ground water movement at the White Mesa Mill site, one must also know about
the Wildlife Ponds which EFRI constructed to lure wildlife away from tailings cells. EFRI
constructed two of these unlined ponds in the early 1980s, and the third one in 1995. Piped
water from Recapture Reservoir, North of Blanding city, was used to fill the ponds. In 2001, the
DWMRC required Energy Fuels to place a series of piezometers around the site to learn more
about rising ground water elevation observed in monitoring well MW-4. That well showed an
increase in ground water elevation of 24 feet from 1995 to 2001. Water leaking from the unlined
Wildlife Ponds, the only possible source of such a substantial amount of water, caused this
increase. This increase in the water table would likely have leached and mobilized natural
uranium and other constituents as a result of saturation of zones beneath the site that had
previously been unsaturated. It could also have mobilized contaminants in and around the
wildlife ponds themselves.
The ground water head elevation continued to rise in well MW-4 until the Mill drained and
discontinued use of the two northern wildlife ponds during 2011.
Chloroform Plume Corrective Action
A DWMRC split sampling event occurred in May, 1999. Results from that event revealed
excess chloroform concentrations in monitoring well MW-4, located along the eastern margin of
the site. Because these concentrations exceeded the Utah Ground Water Quality Standard of 70
µg/L, the DWMRC issued a Ground Water Corrective Action Order against Energy Fuels on
August 23, 1999. The Order required completion of: 1) a contaminant investigation report to
39 | Page

define boundaries for the contaminant plume, and 2) a groundwater corrective action plan to
clean it up. EFRI installed twenty new monitoring wells (since increased to 38 wells) at the site
as part of the investigation. Monitoring from this investigation identified the chloroform plume.
These samples also revealed other VOC contaminants associated with chloroform.
A map showing the location of the chloroform plume, as determined by evaluating sampling
results, and maps showing ground water direction, both current and recent past, are found at.
http://www.deq.utah.gov/businesses/E/energyfuels/reports/chloroform_rpt.htm
The Director ultimately agreed with Energy Fuels that the source of the contamination was most
likely to be historic laboratory wastewater disposal activities. Historically, the mill sent
laboratory waste to sewage leach fields. Since construction of Cell 1 in 1981, it has received all
laboratory waste from the mill.
The Director based his determination that the chloroform plume originated from laboratory
wastewater sent to sewage leach fields, and not leaking from tailings cells, on the following
facts, among others: • The location of the highest levels of chloroform contamination occurs at or near the
sewage leach fields; • The contaminant plume lies up-gradient or cross-gradient from the tailings cells; • Monitoring wells down-gradient from the tailings cells do not show chloroform
contamination; and, • As described below, the remediation program has reduced contaminant concentrations,
indicating that no continuous source, such as a leaking tailings cell, exists for the
contaminants • As with every ground water corrective action, assumptions about the source drive design
of the corrective action plan (assumptions that in this case rely on the evidence cited
above), and investigators test those assumptions with ground water monitoring as
corrective action proceeds. Results of remediation that conflict with the assumptions
will lead the DWMRC to evaluate whether to reopen the matter.
In this case, the monitoring results support the assumptions made about the source. Energy Fuels
began in April, 2003 to pump contaminated groundwater and place it into Cell 1, for evaporation
or reuse in the milling process. Groundwater monitoring results show this initial remediation
effort was effective as shown in the table below.
Table 7
40 | Page

Chloroform Plume Monitoring Results
Chloroform
plume
monitoring well
Date of
Sampling with
Highest
Concentration
Highest
Chloroform
Concentration,
μg/L
Most Recent
(10/16)
Chloroform
Concentration,
μg/L
Percent
Decrease from
Highest to
Current
Chloroform
Concentration
MW-4 05-Aug 3,500 1,470 58.00%
TW4-1 05-May 3,080 1,330 56.82%
TW4-4 05-Aug 3,200 1,430 55.31%
TW4-7 05-Aug 3,100 886 71.42%
Reduction of contaminant concentrations indicates that the pumping program works, and
eliminates the probability of a continuous source, such as a leaking cell, contributing
contaminants.
The Director approved the Corrective Action Plan for Chloroform following a public comment
period, and incorporated it into a September 14, 2015, Stipulation and Consent Order, Docket
Number UGW20-01-SCO. This approval carries conditions, stipulated penalties and timelines
outlined in the Stipulation and Consent Order. The remediation plan requires Energy Fuels to
pump the groundwater and treat it by evaporation and/or use as process water. The remediation
strategy appears successful as shown in Table 7 above.
As with every ground water corrective action, assumptions about the source drive design of the
corrective action plan (assumptions that in this case rely on the evidence cited above), and
investigators test those assumptions with ground water monitoring as corrective action proceeds.
Results of remediation that conflict with the assumptions will lead the DWMRC to evaluate
whether to reopen the matter.
Nitrate Plume Corrective Action
During a review of the Energy Fuels April 30, 2008 New Wells Background Report and other
Energy Fuels reports, the DWMRC noted results for five monitoring wells in the mill site area
with Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) (hereafter Nitrate) concentrations above the Utah Ground Water
Quality Standard (10 mg/L).
After identifying the Nitrate Plume and sharing the information with Energy Fuels, the Director
and Energy Fuels entered into a January 28, 2009 Stipulated Consent Agreement that required
Energy Fuels to complete a Contaminant Investigation Report to determine the potential sources
41 | Page

of the Nitrate contamination. EFRI installed nineteen additional wells to determine the extent of
the contamination.
A map showing the location of the Nitrate Plume, as determined by evaluating sampling results,
can be found at the following:
http://www.deq.utah.gov/businesses/E/energyfuels/plans/nitrateCAP.htm
Energy Fuels has submitted two reports to the DWMRC. The reports identify the extent of the
Nitrate plume but Energy Fuels and the DWMRC disagreed about what the reports indicated
about the likely source of the plume. Energy Fuels did not believe that the results adequately
demonstrated an on-site source. The DWMRC believed that the reports provided sufficient
evidence to conclude that the plume likely originated primarily from the Ammonium Sulfate
Crystal tank on the Mill site. The Director reached this conclusion based on the following facts,
among others: • The location of the highest levels of contamination occurs at or down-gradient from the
tanks; The contaminant plume occurs up-gradient or cross-gradient from the tailings
cells, demonstrating that the tailings cells do not contribute to the contamination; and • Monitoring wells downgradient from the tailings cells do show nitrate, but not in
concentrations above standards or with increasing trends. Nitrate occurs naturally in
ground water, so its presence in concentrations below standards does not indicate a
problem.
Although Energy Fuels did not agree with that analysis, it did agree to implement a corrective
action plan to clean up the plume. Energy Fuels completed and submitted the Nitrate Corrective
Action Plan to the DWMRC on May 7, 2012. The Director approved the Corrective Action Plan
following a public comment period, and incorporated it into a December 12, 2012, Stipulation
and Consent Order, Docket Number UGW12-04. This approval carries conditions, stipulated
penalties, and timelines outlined in the Stipulation and Consent Order. The remediation plan
requires Energy Fuels to pump the groundwater and treat it by evaporation and/or use as process
water. Pumping under the remediation plan began in January, 2013. It is too early in the
remediation process to determine whether there are trends in ground water monitoring results
that are responsive to the pumping.
As with every ground water corrective action, assumptions about the source drive design of the
corrective action plan (assumptions that in this case rely on the evidence cited above), and
investigators test those assumptions with ground water monitoring as corrective action proceeds.
If remediation results conflict with the conclusions and assumptions upon which the corrective
action is based, the DWMRC will evaluate whether to reopen the matter.
Monitoring Well MW-20 and MW-22
42 | Page

Monitoring wells MW-20 and MW-22 were installed in 1994 and are located at a distance of
more than ¾ mile and one mile south of the tailings cells, respectively. When the State of Utah
began oversight of the Mill in August 2004, no monitoring data for these wells existed. The
DWMRC first required monitoring these wells in a March 17, 2008, Permit modification.
The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe has commented that these two wells should be treated as points of
compliance. When a well is specified as a point of compliance, it means that if there is any
exceedance of a compliance limit, the Licensee must perform an assessment of the sources,
extent and potential dispersion of the contamination, and an evaluation of potential remedial
action to restore and maintain ground water quality to insure that Permit limits will not be
exceeded at the compliance monitoring point.
In order to determine whether these two wells should be considered points of compliance, the
DWMRC required Energy Fuels to submit a report with information about background
groundwater quality for the wells and groundwater velocities in the vicinity of wells MW-20 and
MW-22. Based on this report, submitted on June 1, 2012, the Director determined that there was
not sufficient information to deem the monitoring wells as points of compliance. This
determination was based on the following considerations, among others: • The distance between monitoring wells MW-20 and MW-22 and the nearest tailings
impoundment. MW-20 is about three quarters of a mile away and MW-22 is about a mile
away and cross gradient from the downgradient edge of Cell 4A making it unlikely that
groundwater quality in samples from these wells today has been influenced by potential
tailings cell seepage. • The calculated average linear groundwater velocities for MW-20 and MW-22 of 0.33 feet per
year (ft/yr) and 0.43 ft/yr, respectively. Therefore, it would take several thousand years
before wastewater from the tailings cells could impact wells MW-20 and MW-22. This also
means that any exceedances in the two wells would likely be attributable to another source. • The presence of one other far-downgradient monitoring wells ( MW-3A) between MW-20
and the nearest tailings cell. Results from this monitoring well located near the tailings cells
would show evidence of any leakage before MW-20 and MW-22.
Monitoring at MW-20 and MW-22 has shown some exceedance of standards, mostly for
uranium. The DWMRC was concerned that these observations could be related to tailings cell
leakage. The Study described in Part 1.5.5 of this General Response was conducted to answer
this question; for the reasons described in that section, the evidence indicates that the tailings
cells are not impacting the wells.
Monitoring at the wells demonstrates that there are constituents present at levels greater than
standards. These results will continue to be monitored for concentrations and trends but the
DWMRC is not requiring any further action at this time for the following reasons:
43 | Page

• The evidence shows that the increased concentrations of constituents are not the result of
any potential tailings leakage (see General Response, Parts 1.5.5 and 1.5.6).
• The best explanations that fits the evidence are groundwater has become acidic as a result
of pyrite leaching, or that the increased water table caused other constituents to leach and
mobilize.
• Three out of the four indicator parameters show a decreasing trend, suggesting that the
source of any contamination is not continuing.
University of Utah Study of Source of Elevated Metal Concentrations in Monitoring Wells
When the DWMRC began oversight of the Mill, it noted that ground water monitoring had
showed elevated concentrations of metals, primarily uranium, in wells MW-3, MW-3A, MW-14,
MW-15, and MW-22 on the Mill site. The DWMRC was concerned about whether the
observations meant that tailings cells were leaking. To address its concerns, the DWMRC
commissioned the University of Utah to investigate in July 2007. The University completed its
study and published a report in May 2008 (2008 University Report), available here:
http://www.deq.utah.gov/businesses/E/energyfuels/proposals/isotopicstudy.htm
After review of the 2008 University Report, the DWMRC determined that downgradient wells
with elevated total uranium concentrations (including well MW-22) were not being impacted by
any potentially leaking tailings cells. This conclusion was based on at least three lines of
isotopic evidence, as follows:
1. Tritium Signature. Wells MW-3, MW-3A, MW-14, MW-15, and MW-22 had tritium
signatures in groundwater at or below the limit of detection of 0.3 Tritium Units (2008
University Report p. 26). These values are more than an order of magnitude below the
corresponding surface water results found in either the tailings cells or the wildlife ponds. This
means that the groundwater in these five downgradient wells is older than water in the tailings
cells, and is of a different origin than the tailings wastewater.
2. Stable Isotopes of Deuterium and Oxygen-18 in Water. The Deuterium and Oxygen-18
content of the groundwater matrix and tailings wastewater matrix was tested in all of the water
sources studied. The 2008 University Report results showed that wells MW-3, MW-3A, MW-
14, MW-15, and MW-22, all downgradient wells with elevated uranium concentrations, had
Deuterium and Oxygen-18 signatures that were almost twice as negative as any of the surface
water results. (2008 University Report, p. 42.) This shows that groundwater in these
downgradient wells had a different geochemical origin than the tailings cell wastewater.
3. Stable Isotopes on Dissolved Sulfate. The University Study evaluated two stable isotopes
found on sulfate minerals dissolved in the water samples, Oxygen-18 and Sulfur-34. The
evaluation showed that the sulfate solutes in groundwater from downgradient wells MW-3, MW-
44 | Page

3A, MW-14, MW-15, and MW-22 had a different isotopic signature than the sulfate minerals
dissolved in the tailings wastewater. In the case of Oxygen-18 on sulfate, the downgradient
wells showed more negative values than the tailings cells wastewater. For Sulfur-34, the results
were inversed, with groundwater showing more positive values than the negative values seen in
the tailings wastewater. (2008 University Report p. 46.) This shows that the sulfate dissolved in
the downgradient wells, with elevated uranium concentrations, has a different origin than the
tailings wastewater.
In summary, the University Study concluded that wells with high concentrations of metals (MW-
3, MW-14, MW-15, MW-18, and MW-22) bear very different isotopic fingerprints than those of
the surface water sites (e.g. wildlife ponds, and tailings cells) (2008 University Report p. 58).
Regarding uranium concentrations in well MW-22, the University Study stated that "…it does
not appear that the elevated uranium values are the result of leakage from tailings cells.…" (2008
University Report p. 45).
The 2008 University Report further theorized that the cause of the increasing contaminant
concentrations on the site was artificial recharge from wildlife ponds constructed in the early
1980’s and 1995, described in Part 1.5.1. This recharge likely leached and mobilized natural
uranium and other constituents as a result of new saturation of zones beneath the site that had
previously been unsaturated. The Mill drained the north wildlife ponds in March, 2012.
Decreased pH
The DWMRC’s review of Energy Fuels’ 2010 quarterly ground water monitoring data showed
acidity (pH) in ground water at levels that were out of compliance for several monitoring wells.
In May 2011, the DWMRC issued a Notice of Violation and Order requiring Energy Fuels to do
a source assessment and submit revised statistics for those wells.
Energy Fuels responded initially by presenting additional information to the DWMRC showing
that pH decreasing (more acidic) trends appeared to be a site-wide occurrence, observable in
monitoring wells up gradient, down gradient, and cross gradient of the Mill. This showed that
there was likely a regional root cause. It could also indicate that other ground water parameters
that were out of compliance (e.g. metals) may be attributed to increased leaching as a result of
decreases in pH, and thus also attributable to the root cause.
Based on this additional information, the DWMRC extended the time schedule for the pH
statistical evaluation in order to allow Energy Fuels to include a plan to evaluate the root cause
of the site-wide decreasing trends in pH. To date, Energy Fuels has submitted the following
data:
• A Source Assessment Report, White Mesa Uranium Mill (October 10, 2012), prepared by
Intera Geosciences & Engineering (Intera). This report provided source assessment study
of parameter exceedances, not including pH. It provided statistical analysis of data.
45 | Page

• A pH Report, White Mesa Uranium Mill (November 9, 2012), prepared by Intera. This
report provided source assessment study for monitoring wells that are out of compliance
for pH.
• An Investigation of Pyrite in the Perched Zone White Mesa Uranium Mill Site
(December 7, 2012), prepared by Hydro Geo Chem, Inc. This report provides findings of
a study to support the regional geochemical process explaining decreasing pH trends at
monitoring wells. The study analyzed quantities of iron pyrite (from monitoring well
cores and cuttings) and models of dissolution in the Burro Canyon Formation.
Based on its review of the reports, the DWMRC agreed preliminarily that the evidence supported
a conclusion that dissolution of pyrite is possibly a cause for area-wide pH decreasing trends.11
Like all determinations about sources of ground water contamination, this explanation will
continue to be evaluated through analysis of trends in ground water monitoring results. If results
are obtained that are not consistent with this explanation, the DWMRC will review the data to
determine whether the matter will be reopened.
The Director's preliminary determination will be subject to notice and comment during the
Permit renewal, which includes increases in the affected ground water concentration limits.
Deep water supply well WW-2
Deep water supply well WW-2 is installed in the Navajo Sandstone aquifer. In the process of
writing the original groundwater permit for the site, DWMRC staff reviewed well construction
as-built drawing for the wells on site. DWMRC staff found that the construction of deep water
supply well WW-2 appeared to be inadequate, in that it failed to show an annular seal that would
isolate the deep confined aquifer from the shallow unconfined aquifer. Energy Fuels committed
in January, 2010 to verify the well casing and annular seal integrity of well WW-2 and agreed to
remediate the well construction if needed. On January 24, 2012 Energy Fuels submitted an
investigation report for well WW-2. The DWMRC review determined that the findings of the
report were inconclusive to prove that well WW-2's well casing and annular seal have physical
and hydraulic integrity.
Because well WW-2 is a deep water supply well and the water in the well could be used for
drinking water, the DWMRC met with Utah Division of Drinking Water (DDW). The DWMRC
learned that the DDW requires Energy Fuels to sample the well and submit the results to the
DDW. If any of these constituents sampled exceed a maximum contaminant level or if there is
11 There is also another theory that was proposed by Energy Fuels that the DWMRC will consider as it reviews
future monitoring results. Not long before the site-wide decreases in pH were seen, Energy Fuels redeveloped
every well on the Mill property. Redevelopment pumping can introduce oxygen into the ground water, and
oxygen will also decrease pH. The evidence that supports this theory is the short period between well
redevelopment and the beginning of the decreasing trend for pH. Well development and pyrite leaching could
both have been factors in creating the site-wide decreasing trend seen for pH.
46 | Page

any detectable concentrations of volatile organic compounds observed, the DDW will require
Energy Fuels to implement remedial action.
The DWMRC Director determined that DWMRC would not pursue further action on WW-2.
This determination was based on the following factors:
• Well WW-2 is located up-gradient of the tailings cells and the Chloroform and Nitrate
plumes; therefore, it is unlikely groundwater in this well has been affected or will be
affected by these potential sources.
• Well WW-2 currently provides the Mill with water for eye wash stations and showers, is
pumped several times a day, and yields about 160 gallons per minute. The deeper
confined aquifer is protected due to the artesian conditions in the confined aquifer and the
repeated removal of water from well WW-2. This active pumping will deliver any
potential contaminants back to the ground surface for use in the Mill operations.
• Well WW-2 is regulated by the DDW. Energy Fuels is required to sample the well and
submit the results to the DDW. The DDW has informed the DWMRC that if any
samples exceed standards for any constituent or if there is any detectable concentrations
of VOCs observed, the DDW will enforce remedial action.
Surface Water
Finally, some of the comments relating to the groundwater topic raised concerns about the
potential for surface water to impact groundwater. The DWMRC believes that the potential for
surface water to impact groundwater has been adequately addressed. Energy Fuels is required by
its Ground Water Discharge Permit to sample surface water locations (Ruin Spring, Westwater
Seep, Cottonwood Spring, and Entrance Spring) near the White Mesa Mill on an annual basis.
Sampling in these locations began in 2009 and sampling results for each location have been
below Utah Drinking Water Standards, with the exception of the 2013 uranium sample in
Entrance Spring. See General Response Number 2, Part 2.4 for more information.
There is essentially no surface water on the White Mesa Mill site itself, except storm water. A
copy of a 2013 EPA inspection report is included as Attachment I. The Report notes "no
significant findings" (violations), but does recommend that the "Stormwater Best Management
Practices Plan be updated to include the sophisticated storm water diversion efforts made at the
site to control storm water that has come into contact with ore materials as well as the clean
storm water diversion practices on site." Therefore, the DWMRC has concluded that the
Stormwater Best Management Practices Plan, addressed below in Comment Topic #27, is
adequate to address the balance of the comments for the groundwater topic.
Comments associated with this response are: #12; #16; #18; #19; #20; #21; #24; #25; #26; #27;
#28; #29; #33; #36; #37; #38; #69; #202
47 | Page

Comment Topic #27: Stormwater Best Management Plan
Several comments were about concerns that storm water is leaving the site and depositing
radioactive material. The Stormwater Management Plan is designed to require management of
all contact and non-contact storm water and to control and require clean-up of any contaminant
spills at the facility. EFRI is required to ensure contact storm water does not leave the restricted
area and does not accumulate and pool inside of the processing area. EFRI is also required to
prevent non-contact storm water run on into the restricted area and uses ditches and berms to
divert run on away from the facility. DWMRC staff have reviewed the plan in detail and EFRI’s
compliance with applicable requirements. The DWMRC has concluded that the plan and EFRI’s
compliance are adequate to address the comments on this topic.
Comments associated with this response are: #44; #45; #66
Comment Topic #28: Alternate Feed
There were several comments on Alternate Feed ores. These comments were in regard to a
number of comments which include, but not limited to: why alternate feeds are allowed to be
processed; how the DWMRC reviews alternate feed requests; and the need for public comment
on alternate feed requests. The State of Utah was required to recognize alternate feed material as
ore when it signed the agreement with the NRC to become an Agreement State to regulate
uranium mills and 11e.(2) disposal facilities. EFRI is authorized to receive and process source
material from the facilities listed in license conditions 10.6 through 10.20. These alternate feeds
have already met the requirements of License Condition 10.1. Any new alternate feed material
will be subject to review and approval including all radiological and chemical properties. The
estimates that were supplied by EFRI when they requested a new alternate feed, were just
estimates. EFRI is not bound by the number that was provided in each request. The only limit to
the amount of alternate feed that the Mill can have onsite is found in License Condition 10.1.D.
All alternate feed requests are major amendments and will be subject to independent public
comment. There is no need to reevaluate the approved alternate feed materials. All alternate
feed materials have been fully reviewed as part of the license amendment process and all went
through a public comment period. According to NRC NUREG 1556 Volume 20 Guidance
About Administrative Licensing Procedures, reviewers are to review new requests or anything
outstanding that has not been previously reviewed in renewal applications. A renewal review is
not to reevaluate everything that has been previously reviewed and approved. However, several
Alternate Feeds are being removed from the License for details please see the TEEA.
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, defined 11e.(2) material as “the tailings or wastes
produced by the extraction or concentration of uranium or thorium from any ore processed
primarily for its source material content.” It does not state whether the ore is natural or native
material. The State of Utah is required to recognize alternate feed as an ore as per the
Agreement State documents from 2004.
48 | Page

In the NRC document “FINAL POSITION AND GUIDANCE ON THE USE OF URANIUM
MILL FEED MATERIAL OTHER THAN NATURAL ORES” dated September 22, 1995 the
NRC defines ore as follows: “Ore is a natural or native matter that may be mined and treated for
the extraction of any of its constituents or any other matter from which source material is
extracted in a licensed uranium or thorium mill.” The NRC further explains “For the tailings and
waste from the proposed processing to qualify as 11e.(2) byproduct material, the ore must be
processed primarily for its source-material content.” In addition the NRC also states “If the
proposed feed material contains hazardous waste, listed under subpart D §§ 261.30-33 of 40 CFR
(or comparable RCRA authorized State regulations), it would be subject to EPA (or State)
regulation under RCRA. To avoid the complexities of NRC/EPA dual regulation, such feed
material will not be approved for processing at a licensed mill. If the licensee can show that the
proposed feed material does not contain a listed hazardous waste, this issue is resolved. All of
the alternate feeds have been reviewed by the NRC or the DWMRC during the amendment
review process and have determined that the alternate feed meet the requirements to be
considered an ore and do not contain any chemical compounds that are listed hazardous waste.
The alternate feed ores are processed for their source material (Uranium) content and therefore
qualify as 11e.(2) material.
On November 30, 2000 the NRC published RIS 00-023: Recent Changes to Uranium Recovery
Policy. In attachment II the NRC revised its criteria for alternate feed stating “If the feed
material contains hazardous waste, the licensee can process it only if it obtains EPA (or State)
approval and provides the necessary documentation to that effect.”
Even though alternate feeds can have characteristics of hazardous waste in them, the current
alternate feeds being accepted at the Mill do not have listed hazardous waste. Therefore adding
chemical compounds to effluent air monitoring is not required. Alternate feed materials, by
definition, are ores and are processed for source material (uranium); therefore, the MILDOS-
AREA assessments are adequate. No change will be made to the License.
One commenter expressed concerns about alternate feeds that contained Th-232. Each alternate
feed material that has a higher thorium concentration has its own Standard Operating Procedure
(SOP). These specialized SOPs discuss monitoring requirements and the Personal Protective
Equipment requirements for these alternate feed materials. In the second round of health physics
interrogatories, these SOPs were requested and then reviewed by the DWMRC. The DWMRC
found the procedures to be adequate and protective of Human Health and the environment.
Therefore, the DWMRC did not have any concerns or further comment on the contents of these
SOPs.
Comments associated with this response are: #57; #58; #64; #65; #68 #113; #118; #119; #122;
#147; #148; #149; #150; #151; #217
Comment Topic #29: Alternate Feed Circuit
49 | Page

There were many comments regarding the Mill’s alternate feed circuit. The commenters voiced
the concern about the lack of regulatory review and oversight and there was no public comment
or input prior to its construction. EFRI followed License Condition 9.4 which outlines the
process that the Safety and Environmental Review Panel (SERP) shall evaluate changes to the
Mill. The Director agreed with EFRI, that the SERP was appropriate to use in building the
Alternate Feed Circuit for the following reasons:
• The processing of alternate feed materials is already approved at the Mill as documented
in License Conditions 10.1 and 10.6 through 10.19;
• The alternate feed circuit uses the same historic extraction process currently approved at
the Mill;
• The circuit was built within the existing footprint of the Mill facility.
EFRI does provide an evaluation of all of the decisions made by the SERP in an annual report,
which is reviewed by the DWMRC. The DWMRC did evaluate the alternate feed circuit as part
of the annual SERP Report and views the circuit as an improvement to health and safety at the
Mill. Now the Mill can process alternate feed material at a quicker frequency, rather than
waiting to stockpile large quantities of alternate feed material on the ore pad before it can be
processed through the main Mill circuit.
Comments associated with this response are: #108; #109; #110; #111; #112
Comment Topic #30: Alternate Feed Storage
There were many comments associated with the storage of alternate feed materials and fugitive
dust from alternate feed materials. In the first Interrogatory of the 2nd Round of Health Physics
Interrogatories dated July 2, 2009 last sentence the DWMRC asked the following: “Demonstrate
how mill workers and the General Public are protected from unnecessary inhalation exposure
from alternate Feed Stocks that have 0.009 to 65% uranium content that are allowed to be
exposed to the wind.”
In response to this interrogatory the Mill restated the MILDOS modeling that was done for the
Mill and submitted to the DWMRC in the 2007 LRA. In addition EFRI provided the following
comments on alternate feed “The foregoing analysis for conventional ores sets the environmental
envelope for Mill operations that can be performed without considering the need for further
modeling. Alternate feed materials are handled so as not to allow potential exposures to the
public to exceed the potential exposures from processing Arizona Strip ores at full capacity
without further modeling and if further modeling is required without exceeding the applicable
regulatory standards and ALARA goal specified in R313-15-101 R313-15-301 and 40 CFR 190.
Similarly alternate feed materials are only handled in manner that ensures that occupational
exposures are kept within the Mills ALARA goal of 1,250 mrem per year. To date all alternate
50 | Page

feed materials have fallen well within this envelope and no feed-specific modeling has been
required.
In order to meet these requirements the following practices have been followed for alternate feed
materials:
• High grade alternate feed materials typically with 1.0% U308 or greater are usually
received at the Mill and stored in drums or other containers. This is the way that CaF2,
KOH, Rhone Poulenc, Cotter Concentrates and the Cameco KF, Calcined Regen and
UF4 alternate feed materials have been received and stored at the Mill;
• Alternate feed materials that are received in bulk and that have higher risk of public or
occupational exposure than Arizona Strip ores such as may result from high radioactivity
and/or fine dry particles relative to Arizona Strip ores have been covered by less
radioactive materials while stored on the Mills ore pad. This is the way the Heritage
alternate feed materials were handled on site; and
• Alternate feed materials that are received in bulk and that have lower risk of public or
occupational exposure than Arizona Strip ores have been stored in bulk on the site in the
same manner as conventional ores. This is the way the Ashland 1, Ashland 2 and Linde
FUSRAP materials and the Cabot and FMRI materials have been handled on site.
Currently there are approximately 11,000 tons of FMRI alternate feed materials and 5,000 tons
of Cabot alternate feed materials stored in bulk on the ore pad. The average uranium content of
each of those materials is estimated to be less than 0.25% U308. The quantity and radioactivity
of those materials is much less than the quantity and radioactivity of Arizona Strip ores assumed
in the MILDOS AREA modeling to be stored in bulk on the ore pad (300,000 tons at grade of
0.64% U308). In addition the Cabot and FMRI alternate feed materials arrive at the site in moist
state and harden into state that is if anything less dispersible by wind than conventional ores. As
a result the same precautions to prevent windblown at the site for conventional ores periodic
water sprays are considered adequate for those materials.
Based on the foregoing practices, DWMRC is satisfied that all alternate feed materials are
handled at the Mill in a manner that ensures that exposures to the public and occupational
exposures are kept within the environmental assumptions for the site and well within applicable
regulatory standards and ALARA goals.
Comments associated with this response are: #120
Comment Topic #31: Radiation Safety Program
There were comments regarding the Mill’s Radiation Safety Program. NRC Regulatory Guide
8.31 second paragraph of the introductions states, “Section 20.1101 of 10 CFR Part 20,
"Standards for Protection Against Radiation," states that licensees must use, to the extent
51 | Page

practical, procedures and engineering controls based upon sound radiation protection principles
to achieve occupational doses and doses to members of the public that are as low as is reasonably
achievable. Regulatory Guide 8.10, "Operating Philosophy for Maintaining Occupational
Radiation Exposures As Low As Is Reasonably Achievable" (Ref. 1), sets forth the philosophy
and general management policies and programs that licensees should follow to achieve this
objective.”
The radiation protection program required by R313-15-101 is to provide procedures and
descriptions of engineering controls that the Mill uses to maintain all radiological requirements
for both occupational and public dose requirements. The radiological program was submitted to
the DWMRC and reviewed by staff. Staff concerns with the Mill’s radiation protection program
were addressed and documented through the interrogatory process. In the end, it was determined
by DWMRC Staff that if followed and used the procedures and engineering controls will keep
the Mill in compliance with all radiological rules and regulations and keep the Mill activities
ALARA. The DWMRC follows up with the Mill by conducting inspections and reviewing
monitoring data.
Comments associated with this response are: #124; #181, #182; #183; #184; #185; #186; #188;
#189; #190; #193; #197
Comment Topic #32: Occupational Air Monitoring and Derived Air Concentrations
There were comments regarding the occupational air and derived air concentrations (DAC) for
the employees employed at the Mill. DAC values are based off of occupational air monitoring
results (Both general and breathing zone sampling) that is performed in different parts of the mill
and is representative of the working conditions at the time the air samples are being collected.
This means that both native ores and alternate feeds present in the areas that the air samples are
accounted for in the DAC calculations. During the review of the 2007 renewal application the
DWMRC staff reviewed the Mill’s SOPs for determining DAC.
Comments associated with this response are: #129; #130; #131
Comment Topic #33: 11e.(2) or ISL Disposal
There were comments regarding the disposal of In-situ Leach (ISL) material from other uranium recovery sites. License Condition 10.5 allows the disposal of byproduct material from other 11e.(2) facilities such as ISL Uranium Recovery facilities (aka In-situ Recovery) in limited
quantities at the Mill’s tailings cells. Waste from ISL facilities is considered to be uranium
byproduct material as defined by the AEA. This activity does not impact any outstanding
environmental contamination issue. No change will be made to the License.

The comment associated with this response is: #71

52 | Page

Public Comments

December 21, 2011: David C. Frydenlund (EFRI Vice President Regulatory Affairs and
Counsel), written comments (Received via email on December 21, 2011)
December 16, 2011: Celene Hawkins (Associate General Counsel) and H. Michael Keller
(Special Counsel) representing the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, written comments (Received by
mail on December 19, 2011)
December 21, 2011: Sarah Fields, representing Uranium Watch, Living Rivers, and Glen Canyon
Group / Sierra Club, written comments (Received via email on December 21, 2011)

December 21, 2011: Colorado Environmental Coalition, Information Network for Responsible Mining, Center for Biological Diversity, Rocky Mountain Wild, and Sheep Mountain, written
comments (Received via email on December 21, 2011 from Jennifer Thurston)

November 10, 2011 Transcript of Public Hearing, Blanding Utah, Verbal Comments from: Sara
Fields representing Uranium Watch, Living Rivers, and Glen Canyon Group / Sierra Club; Bradley Angel representing Green Action for Health and Environmental Justice; and Armond
Winter

December 15, 2011: Mr. Steve Erikson written comments (Received via email on December 15,
2011)

53 | Page

References
Denison Mines (DUSA) Corp., January 24, 2012, “White Mesa Mill Evaluation of Deep Supply
Well WW-2 Utah Groundwater Discharge Permit No. UGW370004,” 6 pp., 3 figures, and 2 appendices.
Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (2008 through 2010), Responses to DRC Health Physics and
Engineering Interrogatories, Denver, Co.
Hurst, T.G. and D.K. Solomon, May, 2008, “Summary of Work Completed, Data Results,
Interpretations and Recommendations for the July, 2007 Sampling Event at the Denison Mines, USA, White Mesa Uranium Mill Near Blanding Utah,” unpublished report by the
University of Utah Department of Geology and Geophysics, 62 pp. [transmitted via
5/18/08 email from Kip Solomon to Loren Morton (DRC)].
Utah Division of Air Quality, March 2, 2011, Approval Order No. DAQE-AN0112050018-11:
“Approval Order Modification to Add a Baghouse, to Allow Alternate Fuel Usage and to Incorporate Work Practice Standards,” 12 pp.
Utah Division of Radiation Control, December 1, 2004, “Statement of Basis for a Uranium
Milling Facility at White Mesa, South of Blanding, Utah,” unpublished regulatory
document, 57 pp., and 12 attachments.
Utah Division of Radiation Control, September, 2009, “Statement of Basis for a Uranium Milling Facility at White Mesa, South of Blanding, Utah,” unpublished regulatory
document, 42 pp., and 3 attachments.
Utah Division of Radiation Control (2008 through 2010), Health Physics and Engineering
Interrogatories, Rounds 1 through 3, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Utah Division of Radiation Control, October 2011, “Safety Evaluation Report For The Denison Mines White Mesa Mill 2007 License Renewal Application,” unpublished regulatory
document, 46 pp., and 2 attachments.
Utah Division of Radiation Control, Draft Radioactive Materials License No UT1900479
(Renewal), Denison Mines (USA) Corp., White Mesa Uranium Mill (Amendment 5)
Utah Division of Radiation Control, December 29, 2011, “Re: Application by Denison Mines (USA) Corp. for an amendment to Utah License Materials License No. 1900479 for the
White Mesa Uranium Mill to authorize processing of Sequoyoh Fuels Corporation, Inc.
(SFC) alternate feed materials,” letter from Rusty Lundberg to David Frydenlund 1 pp.
Utah Division of Radiation Control, October 13, 2011, “June 21, 2011 DUSA Response and
Transmittal Letter regarding DRC Comment Letter of June 2, 2011: Settlement Monitoring Standard Operating Procedures [SOPs] 06/2011 Revision: DUSA-2;
December 1, 2010 DUSA Original Transmittal Letter for Three Separate Draft SOPs;
Contingent SOP Approval,” letter from Rusty Lundberg to Jo Ann Tischler 1 pp.
Utah Division of Radiation Control, November 3, 2011, “November 1, 2011 DUSA Response
Letter and Transmittal of Movement (Displacement) Monitoring Standard Operating Procedures [SOPs], 11/2011 Revision: DUSA-2.1; October 17, 2011 DRC Request for
Information Letter; December 1, 2010 DUSA Transmittal Letter of Draft Movement
54 | Page

Monitoring SOPs; Approval of Movement (Displacement) Monitoring SOP,” letter from
Craig W. Jones to Jo Ann Tischler 1 pp.
Utah Division of Radiation Control, December 6, 2011, “Approval of 11e.(2) Byproduct
Disposal Operating Procedures (SOPs),” letter from Rusty Lundberg to Jo Ann Tischler 1 pp.
Utah Division of Water Quality, July 14, 2011, Ground Water Discharge Permit, DUSA, Permit
No. UGW370004
Utah State Historic Preservation Office, December 17, 2009, Letter “RE: "A Research Design
for Archaeological Data Recovery on Ten Sites in the White Mesa Mill Cell 4B Project Area, San Juan County, Utah," letter from Lori Hunsaker to Dane Finerfrock 1 pp.

55 | Page

Attachment 1
Written and Oral Comments

56 | Page