DRC-2016-004695 - 0901a06880615157

et~:RGYFUELS
March 3, 2016
-:iv j ·~·!as\--; VI ''1"'"Je•ner1t
at j :-:~c;rirati·_ -n '> ntr< ''
Sent VIA E-MAIL AND OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
Mr. Scott Anderson
Director of Waste Management and Radiation Control
State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality
195 North 1950 West
P.O. Box 144880
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4880
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
225 Union Blvd. Suite 600
Lakewood, CO, US, 80228
303 974 2140
www.cncnryfucls.com
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. Anderson:
This letter transmits Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.'s ("EFRI's") Plan and Time Schedule
pursuant to State of Utah Groundwater Discharge Permit UGW370004 (the "Permit") Part I.G.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 February 11, 2016, EFRI submitted a letter to the Director under Part I.G.1(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 4th quarter of 2015 and indicating which of those
constituents had two consecutive exceedances during that quarter. This Plan and Time Schedule
addresses constituents requiring a Plan and Time Schedule for the 4th quarter of 2015.
Please contact me if you have any questions or require any further information.
Yours very truly,
ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES (USA) INC.
,--..1) -( // j) ') rm::Lf JV~1L-Lt
Kathy Weinel
Quality Assurance Manager
cc: David C. Frydenlund
Harold R Roberts
David E. Turk
Scott Bakken
Logan Shumway
WHITE MESA MILL
State of Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit UGW370004
Plan and Time Schedule
Under Part I.G.4 (d)
For
Exceedances in MW-18 and MW-24 in the Fourth Quarter of 2015
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
225 Union Boulevard, Suite 600
Lakewood, CO 80228
mWi ENERGYFUELS
March 3, 2016
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 MW-18 and MW-24 for the fourth quarter of
2015. Part I.G.2 of the Permit provides that out-of-compliance 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. While consecutive
exceedance have been noted in MW-18 and MW-24 and other wells at the site, a plan and time
schedule and Source Assessment Report (“SAR”) have not been required or appropriate in light
of other actions currently being undertaken by EFRI or in light of other reports submitted by
EFRI, and as determined by Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
(“DWMRC”) Staff. Specifically, consecutive exceedances which occurred in previous reporting
periods are discussed in the SARs submitted to DWMRC October 10, 2012, May 8, 2013,
August 30, 2013, December 17, 2013, January 13, 2014, March 19, 2014, December 9, 2015 and
the Plan and Time Schedules submitted December 4, 2014, September 10, 2015 and December 3,
2015. Additionally, pH was addressed in reports dated November 9, 2012 and December 7,
2012. A description of the other actions and reports which have affected the requirement to
submit a plan and time schedule are as follows:
1. Nitrate + nitrite and chloride in monitoring wells at the site have been the subject of
ongoing investigations at the Mill. Based on the results of the previous investigations,
EFRI and the Director of Waste Management and Radiation Control (the “Director”)
acknowledge that it has not been possible to date to determine the source(s), cause(s),
attribution, magnitudes of contribution, and proportion(s) of the local nitrate + nitrite and
chloride in groundwater. EFRI submitted a Corrective Action Plan (“CAP”) in February
2012 for nitrate + nitrite and chloride in groundwater. The CAP was approved on
December 12, 2012 and the activities associated with the CAP are on-going. Based on
information provided by DWMRC in teleconferences on April 27, and May 2, 2011, due
to the ongoing activities and actions, the 30-day plan and schedule for assessment is not
required for nitrate + nitrite and chloride exceedances at this time.
2. As discussed in previous quarterly groundwater sampling reports, the background levels
and GWCLs for pH were established based on eight or more quarters of laboratory data,
which are historically higher than field data. EFRI’s letter to the Director dated January
31, 2011 proposed the recalculation of the GWCLs for field pH. Following the statistical
evaluation of pH data by EFRI’s geochemical consultant, INTERA, Inc., EFRI compared
the Mill’s groundwater pH data from Q2 2011 and noted that all of the June 2011
groundwater results, and many of the other results from Q2 2011, were already outside
the revised GWCLs that were to be proposed in the June 30, 2011 letter. Pursuant to
teleconferences with DWMRC on December 5, and December 19, 2011, EFRI submitted
a Work Plan and Schedule on January 20, 2012 and a revised plan based on DWMRC
comments on April 13, 2012. Based on the approved Work Plan and Time Schedule,
1
EFRI and DWMRC entered into a Stipulated Consent Agreement (“SCA”) dated July 12,
2012. The SCA required the completion of the pH Report and the Pyrite Investigation
and associated report. The pH Report and Pyrite Investigation Report were submitted
November 9, 2012 and December 7, 2012 respectively. By letter dated April 25, 2013,
DWMRC accepted the conclusions that the out-of-compliance results for pH are due to
background effects within the aquifer matrix and are not caused by Mill activities.
DWMRC also approved the recalculation of the GWCLs. As a result, the 30-day plan and
schedule for assessment is not required for field pH exceedances.
3. A Plan and Time Schedule will not be prepared for monitoring wells with two successive
exceedances in if successive exceedances were reported in a previous quarter and were
included in the Source Assessment Reports (“SARs”), submitted October 10, 2012, May
8, 2013, August 30, 2013, December 17, 2013, January 13, 2014, and March 19, 2014. A
Plan and Time Schedule will not be submitted for those constituents covered by the
previously mentioned SARs, because the conclusions and actions delineated in those
reports were either accepted by DWMRC as documented in DWMRC correspondence
dated April 25, 2013, July 23, 2013, September 17, 2013 January 7, 2014, March 10,
2014, and June 5, 2014 respectively.
Chloroform and methylene chloride are the subject of the ongoing chloroform pumping program
and are covered by State of Utah Notice of Violation (“NOV”) and Groundwater Corrective
Action Order (“CAO”) State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality (“UDEQ”) Docket
No. UGW-20-01. As a result, the 30-day plan and schedule for assessment of chloroform and
methylene chloride exceedances is not required.
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:
• 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 Pre-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
2
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 of
background for each constituent on an intrawell basis plus two standard deviations or the
equivalent. The modified GWCLs became effective on January 20, 2010.
Part I.G.4 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 eleven Plans and Time
Schedules and seven associated SARs to address previous dual exceedances (as required in light
of other actions currently being undertaken by EFRI and as determined by DWMRC Staff and
stated in teleconferences with EFRI on April 27 and May 2, 2011).
This Plan covers the constituents (sulfate in MW-18 and fluoride in MW-24) that were identified
as being in violation of Part I.G.2 of the Permit, in the Fourth Quarter 2015 Exceedance Notice,
dated February 11, 2016. In addition, this Plan and the associated SAR will address field pH in
MW-24. This exceedance was addressed in the pH Report and Pyrite Investigation Report,
however, PH has exceeded the recalculated GWCLs specified in the pH Report due to
statistically significant trends noted in these previous studies.
2. CONSTITUENTS AND WELLS SUBJECT TO THIS PLAN
The following constituents are covered by this Plan:
Table 2
Constituents and Wells Subject to this Plan
Constituent Monitoring
Event
POC Well GWCL Previously
Recalculated
GWCL
Result
Sulfate Q3 2015
Q4 2015
MW-18 1938.9 NA 1990 mg/L
2000 mg/L
Fluoride Q3 2015
Q4 2015
MW-24 0.36 NA 0.388
0.372
Field pH Q3 2015
Q4 2015
MW-24 6.5-8.5 5.55-8.50 5.49
5.48
It should be noted that the 4th Quarter 2015 Exceedance Notice identifies a number of wells,
with consecutive exceedances of other constituents. Those constituents are not included in this
Plan, for the reasons stated in Section 1 above and in the Q4 2015 Exceedance Notice. This Plan
3
and the associated SAR address exceedances in sulfate in MW-18 and fluoride and field pH in
MW-24 as required by the GWDP.
With respect to pH, EFRI and DWMRC entered into a Stipulated Consent Agreement (“SCA”)
dated July 12, 2012. The SCA required the completion of the pH Report and the Pyrite
Investigation and associated report. The pH Report and Pyrite Investigation Report were
submitted November 9, 2012 and December 7, 2012 respectively. By letter dated April 25,
2013, DWMRC accepted the conclusions that the out-of-compliance results and site-wide
decrease in pH are due to background effects within the aquifer matrix and are not caused by
Mill activities. The site-wide decrease in pH due to background effects within the aquifer matrix
has continued, and as a result, EFRI has included pH in MW-24 in this Plan.
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-18 and field pH in MW-24 falls within the third category; constituents in wells
with previously identified rising trends (in the case of field pH it is a decreasing trend).
Assessment of sulfate in MW-18 and MW-24 will follow the process previously used for other
wells in this category.
3.1.1 Sulfate in MW-18
A statistically significant rising trend in sulfate in MW-18 was identified in Table 16, of the
Existing Wells Background Report (INTERA, 2007) and in the analyses completed as part of the
SAR dated October 10, 2012.
Preliminary assessment of the indicator parameters in MW-18 shows that chloride and uranium
are exhibiting significantly rising trends and fluoride is exhibiting a significantly decreasing
trend. Despite the rising trends, MW-18 is a far-upgradient well and cannot have been impacted
by Mill activities. Kriged water level maps indicate that the elevation at monitoring well MW-18
is higher than the water elevations in the Burro Canyon Aquifer beneath all of the Mill Tailings
Cells. Additionally, MW-18 is located north of the Mill Tailings Cells while local groundwater
flow is to the south-southwest.
4
3.1.2 Field pH in MW-24
A decreasing trend in field pH in MW-24 was identified in Table 10, of the New Wells
Background Report (ENTERA, 2008) and in the analyses completed as part of the SAR dated
October 10, 2012 and the pH Report dated November 2012. The trend identified in the
Background Report was not statistically significant, however the trend identified in both the SAR
and pH Report was statistically significant.
Preliminary analysis of the indicator parameters in MW-24 shows that chloride and sulfate are
not trending and uranium is exhibiting a decreasing trend which is not statistically significant.
3.2. Other Constituents
Fluoride in MW-24 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 fluoride in MW-24 will follow the process previously used for other wells in this
category.
Preliminary analysis of indicator parameters in MW-24 is discussed above.
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 Q4 2015 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, ENTERA concluded:
“There are numerous cases of both increasing and decreasing trends in
constituents in upgradient, far downgradient, and Mill site wells, which provide
5
evidence that there are natural forces at work that are impacting groundwater
quality across the entire site.
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 Director, states in the final decision box, for circumstances where the data
indicate an increasing trend to consider a modified approach to GWCLs. If necessary, a modified
approach may be submitted as part of the SAR.
The rising trend in sulfate in MW-18 was analyzed by ENTERA in Section 11 of the Existing
Wells Background Report. A decreasing trend in field pH was also analyzed by ENTERA in
Section 2.5.6 of the New Wells Background Report.
The first step in the analysis will be to perform an assessment of the potential sources for
increasing sulfate in MW-18 and decreasing field pH in MW-24 to determine whether the
exceedances are due to background influences or Mill activities. This assessment will include an
analysis of sulfate and field pH and the other indicator parameters chloride, fluoride, and
uranium to determine if the behavior of the water in MW-18 and MW-24 has changed since the
time of the Background Reports. If the exceedances are 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-18 and
field pH in MW-24 using the methods described in the Existing Wells Background Report
(ENTERA, 2007) and the 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:
6
• When periodically updating background, say every 1-2 years
• When performing a 5-10 year permit review
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-24 shows that uranium is exhibiting a
decreasing trend that is not statistically significant, and chloride and sulfate are not exhibiting
any trends. EFRI believes that the Q4 2015 Consecutive Exceedance of fluoride is likely due to
background influences. The initial GWCL for fluoride in MW-24 was set using eight data points
and does not accurately reflect the natural variation that would be evident with a larger data set.
There are now 38 data points available, which will undoubtedly affect the outcome of the
analysis. Therefore, EFRI proposes to continue accelerated monitoring for fluoride in MW-24
while EFRI prepares, and the Director evaluates, a SAR which will include a geochemical
analysis of fluoride and indicator parameters in MW-24, 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
fluoride in MW-24 to determine whether the exceedance is due to background influences or Mill
activities. This assessment will include an analysis of fluoride and the remaining indicator
parameters chloride, sulfate, and uranium in MW-24 to determine if the behavior of the water in
MW-24 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 fluoride data from MW-24 using
the methods described in the Existing Wells Background Report (INTERA, 2007) and the
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 DWMRC 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 sulfate in MW-18 and field pH in MW-24, the previously identified trends
suggests that the Q4 2015 consecutive exceedances are likely due to an unrepresentative GWCL.
It has been established that the continued rising trend in sulfate in MW-18 and the decreasing
8
trend of field pH in MW-24 are not inconsistent with natural background, and in fact were
accepted as natural background for purposes of setting the revised GWCLs in January 2010.
With respect to MW-24, preliminary analysis suggests that the Q4 2015 consecutive exceedance
of fluoride is likely due to an unrepresentative GWCL which was established using eight 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.
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 be on
identifying any changes in the circumstances identified in those studies. Therefore, EFRI will
conduct a geochemical analysis of sulfate in MW-18 and field pH and fluoride in MW-24 and
assess indicator parameters to confirm that the out-of-compliance status is due to variations in
background. The geochemical analysis, and revision of the GWCL if necessary, will be
consistent with the Flowsheet.
9