DRC-2013-003641 - 0901a068803e7cf3

DRC-2013-003641 Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
225 Union Blvd. Suite 600
Lakewood, CO, US, 80228
303 974 2140
www.energvfuels.com
ENERGYFUELS
December 5,2013
Mr. Rusty Lundberg
Division of Radiation Control
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
195 North 1950 West
P.O. Box 144850
Sent VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4820 ^uiav^
Re: Transmittal of Plan and Time Schedule under Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit
UGW370004 Part I.G.4 (d) White Mesa Mill (the "Mill")
Dear Mr. Lundberg:
This letter transmits Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.'s ("EFRFs") Plan and Time Schedule
pursuant to State of Utah Groundwater Discharge Permit UGW370004 (the "Permit") Part LG.4(d) for
Violations of Part I.G.2 of the Permit. Part I.G.2 of the Permit provides that out-of-compliance
("OOC") status exists when the concentration of a pollutant in two consecutive samples from a
compliance monitoring point exceeds a groundwater compliance limit ("GWCL").
On November 15, 2013, EFRI submitted a letter to the Director under Part LG.l(a) of the Permit
providing notice that the concentrations of specific constituents in groundwater monitoring wells at the
Mill exceeded their respective GWCL's for the 3rd quarter of 2013 and indicating which of those
constituents had two consecutive exceedances during that quarter. This Plan and Time Schedule
addresses violations of Part I.G.2 of the Permit for the 3rd quarter of 2013.
Please contact me if you have any questions or require any further information.
Yours very truly,
ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES (USA) INC.
Kathy Weinel
Quality Assurance Manager
cc: David C. Frydenlund
Harold R. Roberts
David E. Turk
Jo Ann Tischler
WHITE MESA MILL
State of Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit UGW370004
Plan and Time Schedule
Under Part I.G.4 (d)
For
Violation of Part I.G.2 for a Constituent in the Third Quarter of 2013
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
225 Union Boulevard, Suite 600
Lakewood, CO 80228
Gf ENERGY FUELS
December 5, 2013
1
1. INTRODUCTION
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. ("EFRI") operates the White Mesa Uranium Mill (the
"Mill"), located near Blanding Utah, under State of Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit
UGW370004 (the "Permit").
This is the plan and time schedule (the "Plan") required under Part I.G.4(c) of the Permit relating
to violations of Part I.G.2 of the Permit for the 3rd quarter of 2013. Part I.G.2 of the Permit
provides that out-of-compliance ("OOC") status exists when the concentration of a pollutant in
two consecutive samples from a compliance monitoring point exceeds a groundwater compliance
limit ("GWCL") in Table 2 of the Permit.
The Permit was originally issued in March, 2005, at which time GWCLs were set on an interim
basis, based on fractions of State Ground Water Quality Standards or the equivalent, without
reference to natural background at the Mill site. The Permit also required that EFRI prepare a
background groundwater quality report to evaluate all historic data for the purposes of
establishing background groundwater quality at the site and developing GWCLs under the
Permit.
As required by then Part I.H.3 of the Permit, EFRI submitted the following to the Director of the
Utah Division of Radiation Control ("DRC") (the Director was formerly known as the Executive
Secretary of the Utah Radiation Control Board and the Co-Executive Secretary of the State of
Utah Water Quality Board):
• A Revised Background Groundwater Quality Report: Existing Wells For Denison Mines
(USA) Corp.'s Mill Site, San Juan County, Utah, October 2007, prepared by INTERA,
Inc. (the "Existing Wells Background Report");
• A Revised Addendum: — Evaluation of Available P re-Operational and Regional
Background Data, Background Groundwater Quality Report: Existing Wells For
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.'s Mill Site, San Juan County, Utah, November 16, 2007,
prepared by INTERA, Inc. (the "Regional Background Report"); and
• A Revised Addendum: — Background Groundwater Quality Report: New Wells For
Denison Mines (USA) Corp. 's Mill Site, San Juan County, Utah, April 30, 2008, prepared
by INTERA, Inc. (the "New Wells Background Report, and together with the Existing
Wells Background Report and the Regional Background Report, the "Background
Reports").
Based on a review of the Background Reports and other information and analyses the Director
re-opened the Permit and modified the GWCLs to be equal to the mean concentration plus two
standard deviations or the equivalent. The modified GWCLs became effective on January 20,
2010. EFRI has conducted accelerated monitoring and exceedance tracking for those
constituents that have exceeded the GWCLs since January 20, 2010.
2
Part I.G.I c) of the GWDP states, with respect to exceedances of GWCLs, "that the Permittee
shall prepare and submit within 30 calendar days to the Executive Secretary a plan and a time
schedule for assessment of the sources, extent and potential dispersion of the contamination, and
an evaluation of potential remedial action to restore and maintain groundwater quality to insure
that Permit limits will not be exceeded at the compliance monitoring point and that DMT or BAT
will be reestablished." Pursuant to this requirement, EFRI has submitted six Plans and Time
Schedules and four associated Source Assessment Reports ("SARs") to address previous dual
exceedances as shown in the Table 1 below (as required in light of other actions currently being
undertaken by EFRI and as determined by DRC Staff and stated in teleconferences with EFRI on
April 27 and May 2, 2011).
Table 1
Plans and Time Schedules and SARs Previously Submitted
Quarter Plan and Time
Schedule Date
SAR date
Ql 2010, Q2 2010,
Q3 2010, Q4 2010,
Ql 2011
June 13,2011 October 10, 2012
Q2 2011 September 7, 2011 October 10, 2012
Q3 2012 December 13, 2012 May 7, 2013
Q4 2012 March 15, 2013 August 30, 2013
Ql 2013 August 27, 2013 Due December 17,
2013
Q2 2013 September 20, 2013 Due January 14, 2014
On November 15, 2013 EFRI submitted a notice (the "3rd Quarter 2013 Exceedance Notice") to
the Executive Secretary under Part I.G.l(a) of the Permit providing notice that the concentrations
of specific constituents in the monitoring wells at the Mill exceeded their respective GWCLs for
the 3rd quarter of 2013, and indicating which of those constituents had two consecutive
exceedances as of that quarter.
This Plan covers the constituents that were identified as being in violation of Part I.G.2 of the
Permit, in the 3rd Quarter 2013 Exceedance Notice, dated November 15, 2013.
2. CONSTITUENTS AND WELLS SUBJECT TO THIS PLAN
The following Q3 2013 Consecutive Exceedances have been identified as being in out-of-
compliance status under Part I.G.2 of the Permit in the 3rd Quarter 2013 Exceedance Notice:
3
Table 2
Constituents and Wells Subject to this Plan
Constituent Monitoring Event POC Well GWCL Result
Sulfate Q2 2013
Q32013
MW-01 838 839 mg/L
911 mg/L
Total Dissolved Solids
("TPS")
Q2 2013
Q3 2013
MW-03A 5805 6020
5860
It should be noted that the August 23, 1999 Notice of Violation and the Exceedance Notices to
date identify a number of wells with consecutive exceedances of nitrate + nitrite and/or chloride,
chloroform and dichloromethane, and pH (less than the respective GWCLs for pH in a number of
wells). However, none of those constituents are included in the SARs for the reasons stated in
the Notice of Violation. That is, chloroform and dichloromethane are associated with the
existing chloroform plume at the Mill, as contemplated in the DRC Notice of Violation and
Groundwater Corrective Action Order. Nitrate + nitrite and chloride are associated with the
nitrate/chloride plume, addressed by the Corrective Action Plan, dated May 2012. With respect
to pH, a separate study and Report were prepared pursuant to the July 12, 2012 Stipulated
Consent Agreement.
3. CATEGORIES FOR ANALYSIS
Previously EFRI has categorized wells and constituents in several categories as follows:
• Constituents Potentially Impacted by Decreasing pH Trends Across the Site
• Newly Installed Wells with Interim GWCLs
• Constituents in Wells with Previously Identified Rising Trends
• Pumping Wells
• Other Constituents
The constituents and wells in Table 2 can be separated into 2 different categories as follows:
3.1. Constituents in Wells with Previously Identified Rising Trends
Sulfate in MW-01 falls within the third category; constituents in wells with previously identified
rising trends. Assessment of sulfate in MW-01 will follow the process previously used for other
wells in this category.
It is worth noting that a statistically significant rising trend in sulfate in MW-01 was identified in
Table 16, of the Existing Wells Background Report (INTERA, 2007).
Preliminary assessment of the indicator parameters in MW-01 shows that chloride and sulfate are
exhibiting significantly rising trends, uranium is exhibiting a significantly decreasing trend and
fluoride is exhibiting a decreasing trend that is not statistically significant. Despite the rising
trends, MW-01 is a far-upgradient well and cannot have been impacted by Mill activities.
4
Kriged water level maps indicate that the elevation at monitoring well MW-01 is higher than the
water elevations in the Burro Canyon Aquifer beneath all of the Mill Tailings Cells.
Additionally, MW-01 is located north of the Mill Tailings Cells while local groundwater flow is
to the south-southwest.
3.2. Other Constituents
TDS does not fall within any of the first four categories for analysis previously used for
assessment. Therefore, it falls within the fifth category, "other constituents". Assessment of
TDS in MW-03A will follow the process previously used for other wells in this category.
Preliminary analysis of indicator parameters in MW-03A shows that fluoride is exhibiting a
significantly decreasing trend, uranium is exhibiting a decreasing trend that is not statistically
significant, and chloride and sulfate are not exhibiting any trends indicating that there is no
evidence of potential tailings cell leakage.
4. PLAN
4.1. General
This Plan is a plan and time schedule for assessment of the source, extent and potential
dispersion of the contamination, and an evaluation of potential remedial action to restore and
maintain groundwater quality to assure that Permit limits will not be exceeded at the compliance
monitoring point and that, to the extent applicable, discharge minimization technology and best
available technology will be reestablished.
Given the analyses in the Background Reports and the recent analyses in the pH report and
previous SARs, EFRI believes that the Q3 2013 Consecutive Exceedances are likely due to
background influences.
4.2. Assessment for Each Category
The approach and scope of review for the categories in Section 3.1 and 3.2 above, is described in
more detail below.
4.2.1 Constituents With Pre-Existing Rising Trends
It was well known at the time of setting the current GWCLs that certain constituents had rising
trends. On page 3 of the Existing Well Background Report, INTERA concluded:
"There are numerous cases of both increasing and decreasing trends in
constituents in upgradient, far downgradient, and Mill site wells, which provide
evidence that there are natural forces at work that are impacting groundwater
quality across the entire site.
5
In almost all cases where there are increasing trends in constituents in wells at the
site, there are increasing trends in those constituents in upgradent wells.
Furthermore, and more importantly, in no case is there any evidence in the wells
in question of increasing trends in chloride, which is considered the most mobile
and best indicator of potential tailings cell leakage at the site. We consider the
combination of these factors to be conclusive evidence that all increasing trends at
the site are caused by natural forces and not by Mill activities".
The Groundwater Data Preparation and Statistical Process Flow for Calculating Groundwater
Protection Standards, White Mesa Mill Site, San Juan County, Utah, (the "Flowsheet") which
was approved by the Executive Secretary, states in the final decision box, for circumstances
where the data indicate an increasing trend to consider a modified approach to GWCLs. A
modified approach is currently under development by EFRI and will be submitted under separate
cover.
The rising trend in sulfate in MW-01 was analyzed by INTERA in Section 11 of the Existing
Wells Background Report.
The first step in the analysis will be to perform an assessment of the potential sources for sulfate
in MW-01 to determine whether the exceedance is due to background influences or Mill
activities. This assessment will include an analysis of sulfate and the other indicator parameters
chloride, fluoride, and uranium to determine if the behavior of the water in MW-01 has changed
since the time of the Background Report. If the exceedance is determined to be caused by
background influences, then it is not necessary to perform any further evaluations on the extent
and potential dispersion of the contamination or to perform an evaluation of potential remedial
actions. Monitoring will continue, and revised GWCLs will be proposed to reflect changes in
background conditions at the site.
The revised GWCL process will include a statistical analysis of sulfate data from MW-01 using
the methods described in the Existing Wells Background Report (INTERA, 2007) and the State
of Utah Department of Environmental Quality approved Flowsheet.
As mentioned in previous SARs and the pH report, the United States Environmental Protection
Agency ("EPA") has recognized the need to update compliance limits periodically to reflect
changes to background conditions.
In 2009 guidance, EPA states:
"We recommend that other reviews of background also take place periodically.
These include the following situations:
• When periodically updating background, say every 1-2 years
• When performing a 5-10 year permit review
6
During these reviews, all observations designated as background should be evaluated
to ensure that they still adequately reflect current natural or baseline groundwater
conditions. In particular, the background samples should be investigated for
apparent trends or outliers. Statistical outliers may need to be removed, especially if
an error or discrepancy can be identified, so that subsequent compliance tests can be
improved. If trends are indicated, a change in the statistical method or approach may
be warranted."
and
"Site-wide changes in the underlying aquifer should be identifiable as similar trends
in both upgradient and compliance wells. In this case, it might be possible to remove
a common trend from both the background and compliance point wells and to
perform interwell testing on the trend residuals."
(EPA 530/R-09-007, March 2009, Statistical Analysis Of Groundwater Monitoring Data At
RCRA Facilities Unified Guidance, Environmental Protection Agency, Office Of Resource
Conservation And Recovery.)
4.2.2 Other Constituents
Preliminary analysis of indicator parameters in MW-03A shows that fluoride is exhibiting a
significantly decreasing trend, uranium is exhibiting a decreasing trend that is not statistically
significant, and chloride and sulfate are not exhibiting any trends. EFRI believes that the Q3
2013 Consecutive Exceedance of TDS is likely due to background influences. The initial
GWCL for TDS in MW-03A was set using nine data points and does not accurately reflect the
true natural variation that would be evident with a larger data set. Further, an increasing trend in
TDS was identified at the time of the Background Report, however the trend was not significant
likely due to too few data points and a poor fitting trend line. There are now 29 data points
available, which will undoubtedly affect the outcome of the analysis. Therefore, EFRI proposes
to continue accelerated monitoring for TDS in MW-03A while EFRI prepares, and the Director
evaluates, a SAR which will include a geochemical analysis of TDS and indicator parameters in
MW-03A, and if appropriate, a proposed revised GWCL using all data available at the time of
the analysis.
The first step in the analysis will be to perform an assessment of the potential sources for TDS in
MW-03A to determine whether the exceedance is due to background influences or Mill
activities. This assessment will include an analysis of TDS and indicator parameters chloride,
fluoride, sulfate, and uranium in MW-03A to determine if the behavior of the water in MW-03A
has changed since the time of the Background Report. If the exceedance is determined to be
caused by background influences, then it is not necessary to perform any further evaluations on
the extent and potential dispersion of the contamination or to perform an evaluation of potential
remedial actions. Monitoring will continue, and a revised GWCL will be proposed to reflect
changes in background conditions at the site.
7
The revised GWCL process will include a statistical analysis of TDS data from MW-03 A using
the methods described in the Existing Wells Background Report (INTERA, 2007) and the State
of Utah Department of Environmental Quality approved Flowsheet.
As mentioned above, the EPA has recognized the need to update compliance limits periodically
to reflect changes to background conditions.
4.3. Experts Reports to be Prepared
The results of the statistical analysis and, if appropriate, recalculation of the GWCL will be
compiled as a SAR that will be submitted to DRC within 90 days of the approval of this plan.
The SAR will detail the results of all analyses to be performed and the conclusions to be drawn
from such analyses, including proposed revision to the existing GWCL. Specifically, the SAR
will follow the format of the originally submitted SAR (October 10, 2012) and will include
discussions, results and conclusions of the analyses and appendices containing the following:
A geochemical analysis
Comparison of calculated and measured TDS for samples with complete major ions
Charge balance calculations
Descriptive statistics
Box plots to identify extreme outliers
Histograms and Shapiro Wilk test for normality
Regression or Mann Kendall trend analysis
Proposed Revised GWCLs
A geochemical analysis of Indicator Parameters
Descriptive Statistics
Box plots to identify extreme outliers
Histograms and Shapiro Wilk test for normality
Regression and/or Mann Kendall trend analysis
5. TIME SCHEDULE
The SAR will be submitted to the Director within 90 days after approval of this Plan. The SAR
contemplated by this submission may be combined with any subsequent SARs resulting from
other Plans and Schedules for other out of compliance constituents, as necessary.
6. CONCLUSION
Given the varied background groundwater quality at the site, it cannot be assumed that
consecutive exceedances of a constituent in a monitoring well means that contamination has
been introduced to groundwater in that well.
With respect to MW-01, the previously identified rising trend suggests that the Q3 2013
consecutive exceedance of sulfate is likely due to an unrepresentative GWCL. It has been
established, then, that the continued rising trend in sulfate in MW-01 is not inconsistent with
8
natural background, and in fact was accepted as natural background for purposes of setting the
revised GWCLs in January 2010.
With respect to MW-03A, preliminary analysis suggests that the Q3 2013 consecutive
exceedance of TDS is likely due to an unrepresentative GWCL which was established using nine
data points at the time of the Background Report. These exceedances represent natural variation
in background and are not caused by potential tailings cell leakage, based on the lack of
significantly increasing trends in indicator constituents in MW-03 A.
Background at the Mill site was recently thoroughly studied in the Background Reports, the
SAR, the pH report, and the University of Utah Study. The Background Reports, the SAR, the
pH report and the University of Utah Study concluded that groundwater at the site has not been
impacted by Mill operations. All of these studies also acknowledged that there are natural
influences at play at the site that have given rise to increasing water levels and general variability
of background groundwater chemistry at the site.
EFRI maintains that it is not practicable to redo the University of Utah Study and comprehensive
Background Reports each time a monitoring well shows consecutive exceedances, particularly
where the exceedances are consistent with those recent analyses. The focus should therefore be
on identifying any changes in the circumstances identified in those studies. Therefore EFRI will
conduct a geochemical analysis of sulfate in MW-01 and TDS in MW-03 A and indicator
parameters to confirm that the out-of-compliance status for sulfate in MW-01 and TDS in MW-
03A is due to variation in background which may not have been accounted for at the time of the
Background Report because of limited available data. The geochemical analysis, and revision of
the GWCL if necessary, will be consistent with the Flowsheet.
9