DRC-2018-002370 - 0901a068807c9e94

ENENOYFUEI.S
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
225 Union Blvd. Suite 600
Lakewood, "?;ii;i\?fr
www.energyfuels.com
March 2,2018
Sent VIA E-MAIL AND EXPRESS DELMRY
Div of Waste Management
and Radiation Control
MAR - 6 2OIB
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
Re: Transmittal of Plan and Time Schedule under Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit
UGW370004 Part I.G.4 (c) White Mesa MiIl (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(c) for MW-14 for the
fourth quarter of 2017 . Partl.G.z 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"). While consecutive exceedance have been noted in other wells at the
site, a plan and time schedule 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.
This Plan covers fluoride in MW-14 that was identified as being in violation of Part I.G.2 of the Permit, in the
Fourth Quarter 2017 Exceedance Notice, dated February 8, 2018.
Please contact me if you have any questions or require any further information.
Yours very truly,
Ervrncy Funm REsouRCEs (USA) INc.
4*flo.',1
Kathy Weinel
Quality Assurance Manager
cc: Mark Chalmers
David Turk
Scott Bakken
David Frydenlund
Logan Shumway
Paul Goranson
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 Fourth Quarter of 2017
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
225 Union Boulevard, Suite 600
Lakewood, CO 80228
March 2,2018
1. INTRODUCTION
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) [nc. ("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 IvtW-14 for the fourth quarter of 2O17. 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 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 11,2013, January 13,2014, March
19,2014, December 9,20t5,Jrne24,2016, and August20,2017 and the Plan and Time Schedule
submitted December 4,2014. 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 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 2012for 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 April27, andMay 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
3I,2011 proposed the recalculation of the GWCLs for field pH. Following the statistical
evaluation of pH data by EFRI's geochemical consultant, INTERA, Irc., EFRI compared
the Mill's groundwater pH data from Q2 2OI1 and noted that all of the June 2011
groundwater results, and many of the other results from QZ 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, 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 Aprll 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 Q3 2OI4 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 30,2OI3, December I7,2013, 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 l7 ,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 2OO5, 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
State of Utah Division of Radiation Control (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
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 20,2O1O.
Part I.G.4 c) of the current GWDP, dated January 19,2018, 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 fourteen Plans and Time Schedules and nine 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 andMay 2,
zott).
This Plan covers fluoride in MW-14 that was identified as being in violation of Pan I.G.2 of the
Permit, in the Fourth Quarter 2017 Exceedance Notice, dated February 8, 2018.
2. CONSTITUENTS AND WELLS SUBJECT TO THIS PLAN
The following constituents are covered by this Plan:
Table 1
Constituent and Well Subject to this Plan
Constituent POC Well Current GWCL Q4 2017
Results
Fluoride
(ms/L)
N{W-14 0.2 0.217,0.360
It should be noted that the fourth Quarter 2017 Exceedance Notice identifies a number of wells,
with consecutive exceedances of other constituents. None of those constituents are included in
this Plan, for the reasons stated in Section 1 above and in the Q4 2107 Exceedance Notice. This
Plan and the associated SAR are being submitted to DWMRC by EFRI to address exceedances in
Ivtw-l4 for fluoride.
3. CATEGORIES FOR ANALYSIS
Previously EFRI has categorized wells and constituents subject to SARs into categories as follows:
o Constituents Potentially Impacted by Decreasing pH Trends Across the Siteo Newly Installed Wells with Interim GWCLso Constituents in Wells with Previously Identified Rising Trends
o Pumping Wellso Other Constituents
Fluoride in MW-14 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".
3.1. OtherConstituents
Preliminary analysis of indicator parameters in MW-14 shows that chloride and fluoride are
decreasing and sulfate, and uranium 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 previous analyses which show that indicator parameters in MW-14 are not exhibiting
significantly increasing trends, EFRI believes that the Q4 2011 Consecutive Exceedance is likely
due to background influences and natural variation. The initial GWCL for fluoride in MW-14 was
set using eleven data points and does not accurately reflect the true natural variation that would be
evident with a larger data set. There are now 6l data points available, which will undoubtedly
affect the outcome of the analysis. Therefore, EFRI proposes to continue accelerated monitoring
for fluoride in MW-14 while EFRI prepares, and the Director evaluates, a SAR which will include
a geochemical analysis of fluoride and indicator parameters in MW-14, and if appropriate, a
proposed revised GWCL for fluoride using all data available at the time of the analysis.
It is important to note that historical fluoride data, including those data used to calculate the initial
GWCL, were generated using a less sensitive analytical method which resulted in the data showing
little to no variation due to this lack of sensitivity in the analyses. The dataset used to determine
the initial GWCL consisted of eleven results that were equal to 0.2 mgL, resulting in no
distribution and a standard deviation of 0. Fluoride data collected after the analytical method
change show increased variability, likely due to increased laboratory precision. For example, the
Q4 2017 result of 0.217 mgtL would have previously been reported as 0.2 mgtL and would not
have been considered an exceedance.
4.2. Approach for Analysis
The first step in the analysis will be to perforn an assessment of the potential sources for fluoride
in MW-14 to determine whether the exceedance is due to background influences or Mill activities.
This assessment will include an analysis of fluoride as well as the other indicator parameters
chloride, sulfate, and uranium in MW-14 to determine if the behavior of the water in MW-14 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 perfofln 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 fluoride data from MW-14 using
the methods described in the Existing Wells Background Report (INTERA, 2007a) and the State
of Utah Department of Environmental Quality approved Flowsheet ("the Flowsheet").
As mentioned in the SARs, 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:
o When periodically updating background, say every l-2 years
o 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 RCP/^
Facilities Unified Guidance, Environmental Protection Agency, Office Of Resource Conservation
And Recovery.)
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 previously submitted SARs and will include discussions, results and
conclusions of the analyses and appendices containing the following:
A geochemical analysis of fluoride in MW-14
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 GWCL for fluoride in MW-14
A geochemical analysis of Indicator Parameters in MW-14
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-14, preliminary analysis suggests that the Q4 2Ot7 Consecutive Exceedance
of fluoride is likely due to an unrepresentative GWCL which was established using eleven 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 IVIW-14. tn addition, the current analytical
methodology is sensitive enough to reflect natural variance in the measurements, while previous
methods did not report data sensitive enough to reflect natural variations.
Background at the Mill site was recently thoroughly studied in the Background Reports, the SARs
and in the University of Utah Study. The Background Reports, the SAR, 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 fluoride and the other indicator parameters to confirm that the
out-of-compliance status for fluoride 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 and the lack
of sensitivity in the previous analytical methods. The geochemical analysis, and revision of the
GWCL if necessary, will be consistent with the Flowsheet.