The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDRC-2025-001722 Survey Recommendations to Improve Outreach in Communities Near the White Mesa Mill TECHNICAL SUMMARY REPORT Prepared for: Adam Wingate and Stevie Norcross Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control Uranium Recovery Section Report prepared by: Alejandra Lizeth Toscano University of Utah Professional Science Master’s Graduate Student & Uranium Recovery Section Intern April 22, 2025 i Executive Summary This technical report provides recommendations for the development and execution of a survey in Blanding, Bluff, and White Mesa, the communities closest to the White Mesa Mill. The primary objective of the survey is to identify local concerns and attitudes toward the Mill and determine the most effective communication strategies to address those concerns. Insights from the survey will support the Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (DWMRC) in identifying priorities, refining outreach efforts, and guiding internal policy decisions. The first two sections present background information that informed the development of the questionnaire and survey recommendations. This includes demographic characteristics of the three communities, documented concerns voiced by residents in news articles and public reports, and an overview of White Mesa Mill operations. The last two sections focus on recommendations for both the questionnaire design and the proposed administration of the survey in these communities. Specific guidance includes implementing a cross-sectional survey design, which captures responses at a single point in time rather than tracking long-term trends; employing predominantly close- ended and partially open-ended questions; and providing additional considerations for effective question construction, including common pitfalls and how to avoid them. The questionnaire is structured into seven distinct sections: Introductory Statement, Demographics, Relationship with the Mill, Perceived Impacts, Information Sources and Perceived Reliability, Communication Preferences, and Feedback. It also includes a finalized draft of a complete survey questionnaire ready for distribution. Recommended approaches for survey administration include offering a mixed distribution format (online and paper) to account for limited internet access and an aging population; conducting pilot testing; and employing a stratified sampling strategy using age (18 and older) as the primary stratum. It is also recommended to oversample respondents in Bluff and White Mesa, rather than use proportional allocation, as residents in these communities have expressed the highest levels of concern. This approach helps ensure the voices of the most impacted residents are captured and reflected in future outreach efforts. Finally, it is advised to partner with a neutral third-party organization, such as the University of Utah or another institution with an active Institutional Review Board to administer the survey on behalf of DWMRC. This collaboration is expected to increase community trust, encourage honest responses, and ultimately improve survey outcomes. ii Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1 Objective .................................................................................................................... 1 Scope ......................................................................................................................... 1 White Mesa Mill Operations Overview ....................................................................... 2 Understanding the communities ............................................................................... 3 Perceived Risks ...................................................................................................... 3 Water Quality ....................................................................................................... 3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................... 4 Transportation-related incidents ........................................................................ 5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. 5 Demographic Profiles ............................................................................................. 6 Bluff ..................................................................................................................... 6 White Mesa .......................................................................................................... 9 Blanding ............................................................................................................ 11 Survey Design .......................................................................................................... 14 Ethical considerations .......................................................................................... 14 Survey Type .......................................................................................................... 16 Question/Response Types ................................................................................... 16 Additional Considerations for Question Construction ........................................ 17 Suggested Questionnaire and conceptual basis ................................................. 18 Structure ............................................................................................................... 20 Suggested Survey Administration Approach (For Future Implementation) .......... 21 Distribution Methods ............................................................................................ 21 Pre-Testing / Pilot Testing .................................................................................... 22 Sampling Strategy .................................................................................................... 22 Sampling method ................................................................................................. 22 Sample Size .......................................................................................................... 23 iii Potential Execution Plan ...................................................................................... 24 Additional Partnership Considerations ............................................................... 25 Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 26 Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 27 Appendix A – White Mesa Mill Location Map .......................................................... 30 Appendix B – Questionnaire Draft ........................................................................... 31 1 Introduction The Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (DWMRC) is the agency responsible for licensing and regulating uranium recovery facilities in Utah. This includes the White Mesa Mill, the only fully operational conventional uranium mill in Utah and the United States. The White Mesa Mill (the Mill), located in San Juan County, UT (see Appendix A) is surrounded by three populations. It is approximately six miles south of Blanding, UT, twenty miles north of Bluff, UT, and four miles north of White Mesa, UT. The town of White Mesa is located on the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe reservation, which is the home of part of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. One of the DWMRC core values is to actively engage stakeholders and to earn the public’s trust. Such efforts require making accurate and reliable information accessible to the public. After a meeting with the San Juan County Board of Health in October 2024, the DWMRC recognized the opportunity to further address the diverse needs and expectations of the communities surrounding the Mill. This realization led to the idea of conducting a survey, with the goal of better understanding their attitudes and concerns regarding the White Mesa Mill and identifying the most effective means of communication to address them. Based on the survey results, the DWMRC plans to identify key priorities, refine its outreach strategies, and guide internal policy decisions. Ultimately, this initiative aims to create a more inclusive dialogue, ensuring that the agency’s outreach efforts are truly reflective of community needs. Objective The goal of this technical report is to provide recommendations for a survey to be conducted in the communities of Blanding, Bluff, and White Mesa. The purpose of the survey is to identify residents’ concerns, attitudes, and communication preferences regarding the White Mesa Mill. Scope This report focuses on survey design and recommendations. While it offers insights and suggested approaches, the administration of the survey and subsequent data analysis are beyond its scope. 2 White Mesa Mill Operations Overview Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. (EFRI) operates the White Mesa Uranium Mill. Before EFRI took ownership of the mill in August 2012, it was operated by Denison Mines (USA) Corporation from December 2006 to August 2012. Proceeding Denison Mines, the facility was operated by International Uranium (USA) Corporation (Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control, 2025). Today, the Mill operates under the following permits: • Air Quality Approval Order DAQE-AN0112050018-11 • Groundwater Discharge Permit No. UGW370004 (Current) • Radioactive Materials License No. UT1900479 (Current) When the Mill began operating in 1980, it was one of nearly two dozen conventional mills in the United States. Now, almost four decades later, it remains the only fully operational conventional uranium mill in the country. Despite international instability in uranium prices, EFRI has remained in operation by diversifying its revenue streams. For example, the Mill has accepted radioactive materials from other facilities and has a separate circuit for producing vanadium. Recently, the Mill also produced rare earth minerals and medical isotopes (Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc., 2025). The primary goal of the uranium recovery process at the Mill is to produce a solid form of mixed uranium oxide called triuranium octoxide (U3O8), most commonly known as yellowcake. This concentrate serves as the precursor for further processing into fuel for nuclear reactors (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2021). After uranium ore and other materials arrive at the mill site, they are sorted by type into separate stockpiles for processing. The ore is then crushed into fine sand and mixed with water from onsite wells. The slurry is transferred into vats containing sulfuric acid, salt, kerosene, and ammonia, where chemical reactions extract uranium from the ore, producing yellow powder. This substance is subsequently baked in industrial ovens, yielding the final yellowcake, a dark, solid uranium concentrate. The yellowcake is then packed into barrels for shipment. Approximately 90% of the yellowcake produced at the Mill is sent to a uranium conversion facility in Metropolis, Illinois (Hufham, 2024). The remnants of the process include solid radioactive waste (i.e. tailings) and liquid waste (i.e., raffinates) (Environmental Protection Agency, 2025). Mill tailings and raffinates are stored in specially designed ponds called impoundments. The tailings remain radioactive and contain hazardous chemicals from the recovery process. 3 The White Mesa Mill utilizes a tailings management system consisting of five impoundments, commonly referred to as cells (Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc., 2022). • Cell 1: Cell 1 is a 55-acre impoundment built in June 1981. It operates as an evaporation pond which receives solutions only, and it is equipped with a Leak Detection System (“LDS”). • Cell 2: Cell 2 is a 67-acre impoundment built in May of 1980. Cell 2 contains Mill tailings and has been closed to tailings disposal since 1995 and other 11e. (2) byproduct materials since 2000. Cell 2 is equipped with an LDS and slime drain. • Cell 3: Cell 3 is a 71-acre impoundment built in September 1982. It contains Mill tailings and is in the final stages of filling. It also accepts other Mill waste and 11e. (2) material from in-situ recovery (ISR) operations. • Cell 4A: Cell 4A is a 40-acre impoundment built in 2008. This cell is equipped with an LDS and slime drain. In 2022, Cell 4A received solutions from the Mill process, and some solid tailings sands. • Cell 4B: Cell 4B is a 40-acre impoundment built in 2011. It operates as an evaporation pond that receives solutions only. It is equipped with an LDS. In 2018, EFRI formally requested the DWMRC to amend its Radioactive Materials License (Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc., 2018) in order to obtain approval for the construction of Cells 5A and 5B/. However, as of April 2025, the DWMRC has not granted approval. Understanding the communities Perceived Risks Given the nature of its operations, the White Mesa Mill has been a source of significant concern among residents, particularly in Bluff and White Mesa. This section outlines the primary concerns voiced by these communities, based on a review of news articles and public reports. Water Quality One of the most pressing concerns among the community is potential contamination of water sources. The White Mesa Mill’s tailing ponds cover approximately 273 acres. These ponds sit above the Burro Canyon and Navajo aquifers. The latter serves as the drinking water supply for the Ute Mountain Ute’s White Mesa community and is also the primary source of municipal drinking water for Southeastern Utah and Northern Arizona (Clifton, 2016). 4 Residents and environmental advocates are particularly concerned about potential leaks from the Mill’s oldest cells (1, 2, and 3), as these cells were constructed in the early 1980s, are lined with a single 30 mil PVC liner, and are now well beyond their projected lifespan of 15 to 20 years. As a result of the aging infrastructure, local members of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe have concerns regarding contamination of the public water system. Many White Mesa residents rely on bottled water and often travel 11 miles to Blanding, UT, or 65 miles to Cortez, CO, to purchase drinking water (Dunphey, 2024) (Carlisle, 2022). Recognizing these risks, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe has requested different organizations such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Geological Survey (United States Geological Survey, 2011), Geo-Logic Associates (Geo-Logic Associates, 2015), and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 2023) to conduct independent evaluations to assess current groundwater conditions and evaluate potential impacts from the White Mesa Mill. Although key findings from the most recent report conducted by the ASTDR (ATSDR, 2023) indicate that the public water system is safe to drink and meets federal drinking water standards for radioactive contaminants, concerns persist. Air Quality The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe’s director of environmental programs told The Salt Lake Tribune (Hufham, 2024) that the Tribe’s concern regarding air quality starts with the prolonged periods during which materials sit in piles outside before processing, increasing the risk of wind carrying away radioactive dust. The presence of radon is also a significant concern among residents. The Tribe worries that vegetation and air are being contaminated by radon gas (Hufham, 2024). Radon is a radioactive gas that is colorless, odorless, and tasteless, resulting from the natural decay of uranium, thorium, and radium. Although radon is naturally occurring and can be found in nearly all rocks and soil, long-term exposure to airborne uranium contaminants from the Mill could magnify the risk of lung cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radon as a proven human carcinogen, alongside tobacco smoke, asbestos, and benzene. The risk of lung cancer from radon is significantly higher for smokers, who are approximately 25 times more likely to develop lung cancer than non- smokers (International Atomic Energy Agency, 2021). In 2021, the EPA issued a final determination deeming the White Mesa Mill unsuitable for receiving waste from Superfund Sites. This decision was based on violations of the Clean Air Act's National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), specifically Subpart W, which regulates radon emissions from operating mill tailings. The 5 EPA noted that the presence of solids above the liquid surface in the Cell 4B impoundment indicated a failure to maintain appropriate liquid levels in the nonconventional impoundment, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 61.252(b) (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2022). The Mill has since corrected the issues identified by the EPA by increasing the liquid levels in Cell 4B. In turn, the EPA issued an acceptability determination. Transportation-related incidents The transportation of radioactive materials to and from the mill is another significant concern. Trucks carrying uranium ore and other radioactive waste travel through public roads and near residential areas, increasing the risk of accidents, spills, and contamination. Members of the community worry that any of these scenarios could expose people to harmful radiation or lead to hazardous materials being dispersed into the environment. Although a transportation agreement for hauling radioactive material has been recently reached between The Navajo Nation and Energy Fuels Inc. (Becenti, 2025), which will strengthen safety measures and regulations, residents from White Mesa claim (Silversmith, 2025) that they would not be notified if an accident occurs, nor would they know who would be responsible for cleaning the contamination up. Cultural Resources For the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and other Indigenous groups, the land surrounding the White Mesa Mill holds deep cultural and spiritual significance. According to Ute tradition, the people of White Mesa came to the Four Corners area after the creation of the world. Archeologists say that the Southern Utes and the Southern Paiutes entered the region between 430 and 850 years ago. The people of White Mesa descend from a band of the Southern Utes called the Weenuche. (Utah Division of Indian Affairs, 2023). When Energy Fuels Nuclear Inc. proposed to build the mill on White Mesa in 1977, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensed the Mill. The NRC was required to consult with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the Utah State Historic Preservation Officer. However, there was limited to no NRC consultation with local tribal members and tribal governments regarding the impacts of the proposed mill on White Mesa archeological and cultural resources (Fields, 2006). EFRI. contracted with the Antiquities Section of the Utah Division of State History to conduct historical and archeological surveys. They identified over 300 cultural sites within the mill’s boundaries and 167 in the surrounding area. When the mill on White Mesa was originally constructed, the mill property was specifically designated as the White Mesa Archeological District. In 1979, at the request of the NRC, the White Mesa Archeological District was found eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places by the Secretary of Interior (Fields, 2006). It also was an Commented [SN1]: This is actually inaccurate. The surveys met the standards at the time, but not modern standards. I recommend removing this part of the sentence. 6 integral part of the initial license application. Despite this, no formal eligibility determination was ever completed. The mill and impoundments were built on top of culturally significant sites, which had contained kivas, pit houses, and burial sites. A member of the Ute Mountain Ute tribe stated (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 2024) that this fact has also affected his community spiritually, as his ancestors’ remains buried in the area were “desecrated” when the Mill was built. Demographic Profiles The demographic data presented in the following sections was sourced from the Census Bureau website, using the 2023: ACS 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles. Bluff Total population and Ethnicity Bluff has a total population of 179 residents, with 124 identifying as White (69%) and 55 as American Indian (31%), specifically from the Navajo Nation (see Figure 1). The population is spread across 71 households. Age and Gender Distribution There are 125 females and 24 males, and the population is predominantly elderly (refer to Figure 2). Of the 179 residents, 73% (131 individuals) are aged 60-79 years, 13% (24 individuals) are aged 40-59 years, and 9% (16 individuals) are aged 80 or older. Only 5% (8 individuals) of the population is 19 years or younger, and there are no recorded individuals between the ages of 20 and 39. 69% White 31% American Indian Figure 1 Ethnic distribution in Bluff, UT. Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2023). 7 Educational Attainment The population aged 25 years and over totals 171 individuals. Among them, 147 (86%) have completed at least a high school diploma, and 116 (68%) have earned a bachelor’s degree or higher (see Figure 3). Educational attainment is distributed as follows: • No individuals have less than a 9th-grade education. • 24 people (14%) attended high school but did not earn a diploma. • 22 individuals (13%) are high school graduates, including equivalency. • 6 residents (4%) have some college education but did not complete a degree. • 3 individuals (2%) hold an associate’s degree. • 94 people (55%), have a bachelor or professional degree 5% 0% 13% 73% 9% 19 and under 20 to 39 40 to 59 60 to 79 80 and over Females 84% Males 16% Figure 2 Gender and age distribution in Bluff, UT. Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2023). 0 24 22 6 3 22 94 147 116 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Figure 3 Educational Attainment (+25 years old population) in Bluff, UT. Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2023). Commented [SN2]: I don’t want it to sound like we are saying bluff and blanding residents are well-educated, while White Mesa residents are not. The data speaks for itself so I don’t think we need this sentence. 8 Median Household Income Bluff’s median household income is $53,979 USD, which is 41.17% below the state average of $91,750 for 2023 (see Figure 4). Internet Access and Devices Of the 71 households in Bluff, 65 (92%) have internet access, while 6 (8%) do not. Every household owns at least one type of computer device. The most common device is the smartphone, with all households having one (71 households), followed by desktop or laptop computers, owned by 65 households, and tablets, owned by 43 households (See Figure 5). $53,979 $91,750 Bluff State average Figure 4 Median Household income in Bluff, UT vs. Utah average Household Income. Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2023). 92% Internet access 8% No Internet access Figure 5 Internet access and devices by household in Blanding, UT. Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2023). 65 71 43 0 Desktop or laptop Smartphone Tablet No computer 9 White Mesa Total population and Ethnicity The White Mesa community has a total population of 74 people. Of these, 12 identify as White (16%), while 62 identify as American Indian (84%), including 10 individuals specifically of Navajo descent. (See Figure 6). The community consists of 45 household units. Age and Gender Distribution The population in White Mesa is distributed as follows: ● 18 individuals are 19 years old or younger. ● 29 individuals are between 40 and 59 years old. ● 20 individuals are between 60 and 79 years old. ● 7 individuals are 80 years old or older. Similar to Bluff, there is no registered population between the ages of 20 and 39. White Mesa has a predominantly male population, with 54 males (72%) compared to 20 females (27%) (see Figure 7). 84% American Indian 16% White Figure 6 Ethnic distribution in White Mesa, UT. Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2023). 24% 0% 39% 27% 10% 19 and under 20 to 39 40 to 59 60 to 79 80 and overFemales 27% Males 72% Figure 7 Gender and age distribution in White Mesa, UT. Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2023). 10 Educational Attainment In White Mesa, there are 56 residents aged 25 and over, with 44 (79%) having completed at least a high school diploma, reflecting a strong level of basic education. However, none of these residents have earned a bachelor’s degree or higher (see Figure 8) Educational attainment is distributed as follows: • 7 individuals (12.5%) have less than a 9th-grade education. • 5 people (9%) attended high school but did not earn a diploma. • 8 individuals (14%) are high school graduates, including equivalency. • The majority, 36 residents (64%), have some college education but did not complete a degree. • No residents have an associate’s degree, bachelor’s degree, or graduate/professional degree. Median Household Income The median household income in White Mesa is $53,839, which is 41.32% below the 2023 state average (see Figure 9). 7 5 8 36 0 0 0 44 005101520253035404550 Figure 8 Educational Attainment (+25 years old population) in White Mesa, UT. Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2023). 11 Internet Access and Devices Out of 45 households in White Mesa, 36 (80%) do not have internet access, while only 9 (20%) have an internet connection. 18 households have smartphones, while the other 27 do not have any type of computer device (see Figure 10). Blanding Total Population and Ethnicity Blanding is the most populous and ethnically diverse of the three target communities, with a total population of 3,303 residents. The majority of the population is White, comprising 2,062 individuals (62%), followed by 885 American Indians, of which 793 (89%) are members of the Navajo Nation, and 92 (11%) belong to other Native American tribes. The community also includes 65 Asians and 57 Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders. $53,839 $91,750 White Mesa State average Figure 9 Median Household Income in White Mesa vs. Utah average Household Income. Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2023). 0 18 0 27 Desktop or laptop Smartphone Tablet No computer 20% Internet access 80% No Internet access Figure 10 Internet access and devices by household in White Mesa, UT. Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2023). 12 Additionally, 120 individuals identify as multiracial, with 66 reporting a combination of White and American Indian heritage, and 54 identifying as White and another race (see Figure 11). Age and Gender Distribution Blanding has a relatively young population, with more than 60% of its residents under the age of 40. Specifically, 33% (1,087 individuals) are aged 19 or younger, and 32% (1,079 individuals) are aged 20 to 39. The next largest age groups are 40 to 59 years (16%), followed by 60 to 79 years (15%), and only 4% of the population is 80 years or older. The gender distribution is nearly equal, with 1,616 males and 1,687 females (see Figure 12). Educational Attainment Out of a population of 1,848 individuals aged 25 years and over, the majority (93.2%) have at least a high school diploma. Approximately 28.6% have attended some colleges without earning a degree, while 22.4% are high school graduates. About 11.9% hold an associate's degree, 20.6% have a bachelor’s degree, and 9.7% possess a bachelor or 62% White 27% America Indian 2% Asian 2% Native Hawaiian 3% Other 4% Two or more races Figure 11 Ethnic distribution in Blanding, UT. Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2023). Figure 12 Gender and age distribution in Blanding, UT Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2023). Females 51% Males 49% 33% 32% 16% 15% 4% 19 and under 20 to 39 40 to 59 60 to 79 80 and over 13 professional degree. Overall, 30.3% of the population have attained a bachelor’s degree or higher (see Figure 13). Median Household Income Blanding’s median household income is $63,333, which is 30.97% below the state average of $91,750 for 2023 (see figure 14). 44 83 414 528 219 380 180 1,721 560 0 200 400600 800 1000 1200 14001600 1800 2000 Figure 13 Educational Attainment (+25 years old population) in Blanding, UT. Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2023). $63,333 $91,750 Blanding State average Figure 14 Median Household Income in Blanding vs. Utah average Household Income. Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2023). 14 Internet Access and Devices Of Blanding’s 1,094 households, 89% (971) have internet access, while 11% (123) do not. Additionally, 95% of households (1043) have at least one computing device. Smartphones are the most common, owned by 950 households, followed by desktops or laptops (917 households), tablets (648 households), and other devices. However, 5% (51 households) lack any computing devices (see figure 15). Survey Design Ethical considerations Although the survey is primarily intended to inform outreach strategies and guide internal policy decisions rather than academic research, ethical considerations typically associated with research survey are equally relevant and should be acknowledged in the development of the proposed survey. Concerns over ethical considerations in survey research can be traced to the reported abuse of human subjects that took place during World War II (Oldendick, 2012). The Nuremberg War Crime Trials and the resultant Nuremberg Code laid the foundation for multiple research guidelines, including obtaining voluntary consent from participants, preventing unnecessary physical and psychological harm, and allowing individuals to withdraw from participation at any time. The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45, Section 46 (45 C.F.R. § 46, 2022) outlines the formal guidelines that investigators must follow when conducting research involving human subjects. In survey-based research, where information is solicited from individuals, the three core principles of research ethics—autonomy, beneficence, and justice—apply (Ming & Green, 2023). Oldendick (2012) summarizes the practical implications of these general principles in conducting survey research: 11% No internet access 89% Internet access 917 950 648 51 Desktop or laptop Smartphone Tablet No computer Figure 15 Internet access and devices by household in Blanding, UT. Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2023). 15 1. Willing and informed consent: Participants should be clearly informed that their involvement is voluntary, and they have the right to skip any questions they choose not to answer, without facing any negative consequences. Additionally, participants should receive a realistic description of the potential benefits of their participation, as well as any possible cost, such as time commitment, to ensure they are fully informed before agreeing to take part. 2. Do not harm participants: Survey participation should involve minimum respondent burden, in both length and difficulty of the task. Furthermore, any potential risk should be minimized, such as the emotional harm caused by asking sensitive questions or about uncomfortable situations. 3. Protect respondent confidentiality: Survey participants expect confidentiality, meaning their responses should not be identifiable. While anonymity ensures no link between responses and individuals, confidentiality requires protecting identifiable data, such as names or demographic details. In accordance with these principles, it is recommended to include an introductory statement at the beginning of the survey that clearly states its purpose, potential benefits for the respondents, and the estimated time required to complete it. Additionally, the statement should inform respondents that their participation is voluntary and that all individual responses will remain confidential. Below is an alternative version of the introduction statement: “Thank you for taking the time to participate in this survey. The Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control is conducting this study to gather community input and improve outreach strategies related to the White Mesa Mill. Your responses will help shape future communication efforts and help ensure community voices are heard. This survey should take approximately [X] minutes to complete. Your participation is voluntary, and all individual responses will remain anonymous and confidential. We appreciate your valuable input.” 16 Survey Type Since the primary goal of the DWMRC is to identify community concerns and enhance outreach strategies, tracking community changes over time is not a necessary component for achieving this objective. Given this, a cross-sectional survey is the recommended approach. A cross-sectional study captures observations at a single point in time, providing a snapshot of community perspectives, perceived impacts, and engagement levels at the time of data collection. By using a cross-sectional design, the survey focuses on gathering relevant insights efficiently, allowing the division to make informed decisions about improving communication strategies and addressing community needs based on present conditions rather than long-term trends. Question/Response Types The type of question for a survey is selected based on research purpose and which question type will be most likely to elicit the most relevant information for a particular population (Ming & Green, 2023). There are many types of questions, but they generally fall into two broad categories: open-ended questions and close-ended questions. Within these categories, there are specific forms of questions. Aarons (2021) outlines four key types of questions; though other authors may suggest additional types, these four are among the most important: 1. Rating-type questions, which include: • Likert scale • Semantic differential and horizontal rating scales • Feeling thermometer 2. Ranking-type questions 3. Knowledge-type questions 4. Descriptive/demographic questions Corresponding to these question types are two main response formats: 1. Open-ended responses 2. Closed-ended responses It is recommended to focus on close-ended responses, as the majority of surveys rely on this format. (Aarons, 2021). This format matches the question types that are mostly used to measure concepts through rating or ranking with certain types of continua such as a Likert scale. 17 Adhering to this format improves efficiency, facilitates posterior data analysis, and helps mitigate survey fatigue among respondents, reducing drop-offs and missing data. It is also recommended to include partially open-ended questions in the questionnaire. This format combines a close-ended question with a follow-up option that allows respondents to provide an answer that is not originally covered in the original response categories. This can be done by including an "Other (please specify)" option or similar alternative. Using partially closed questions enriches data collection, as it captures communities’ preferences, concerns, and priorities that weren’t contemplated during the survey’s development. Finally, it is also important to consider adding an open-ended question at the end of the survey, as it presents an excellent opportunity for respondents to provide additional ideas, concerns, or recommendations that can be valuable for the DWMRC to review in order to refine outreach strategies. Additional Considerations for Question Construction There are numerous ways to introduce bias and measurement errors in survey design. In particular, measurement errors related to question construction primarily root from the wording of the questions. Aarons (2021) highlights common pitfalls in question construction that should be considered in order to avoid such drawbacks: • Ambiguity and vagueness: Vague or ambiguous questions lack clarity or specificity, making them open to multiple interpretations. As a result, respondents may understand and answer questions differently, leading to inconsistencies in data results. Example: “Do you think the division is doing a good job?” This question is unclear because it does not specify which division or what aspect of its performance is being evaluated. It is needed to take the time to properly define, separate out and specify key concepts in the question. • Double/triple barrel questions: A double-barreled question asks respondents to answer two things or concepts at once. Example: “How clear and accessible is the information provided by the DWMRC on its website?” This question combines two distinct concepts into a single item. The most appropriate approach is to split it up into two separate questions. • Verbosity and obscurity: Verbosity refers to the use of long or wordy questions, which can confuse or fatigue respondents. In addition to verbosity, using complex terms or jargon should also be avoided. 18 Example: “To what extent do you believe the Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control’s environmental remediation strategies are sufficient in mitigating long-term ecological degradation?” Wording questions need to be clear and simple, and the question itself not too long. • Recall: People are unreliable predictors of their own behavior. Example: “In the last 6 months, how many times have you visited the Department of Environmental Quality’s website?” Question aimed at recalling past events should be mostly avoided, or limited to specific, recent memories, and including the word approximately to allow for ranges, rather than exact numbers. • Leading questions: Leading questions coach or leads respondents to answer in a certain way, creating answers that can be falsely positive or negative. Leading questions can over- or – understate a problem or situation. Example: “How concerned are you about impact on the environment of the White Mesa Mill?” This question can lead the respondent to assume that agreeing with the premise means they are, or should be, concerned about the environmental impacts of the Mill. Suggested Questionnaire and Conceptual Basis A complete questionnaire, constituted of 22 questions and 7 sections is found in Appendix B. The rationale behind the questionnaire construction came from the methodology proposed by Aarons (Aarons, 2021). The logical process is described in Figure 16; although the scope of this project is limited to the highlighted steps. Research questions Concepts Dimensions subdimensions Indicators Conceptual model Survey administration Analysis Statistic/ estimate Figure 16 Survey design process (Aarons, 2021). 19 The author considers survey design as a process refinement, or metaphorically, as “descending the ladder of abstraction” from a broader idea (concept) into survey questions aimed to provide valid and reliable data (indicators). This process is called operationalization. A survey’s key function is to measure something through the questions it contains. What survey measures ultimately through a series of questions is a concept or construct (Aarons, 2021). Concepts have dimensions; A dimension is a specific related component of the broader concept that focuses on a particular characteristic, setting it apart from the main concept. From concepts and dimensions, indicators are developed. Indicators are the actual questions in the survey that assess the relevant concept. For this specific case, the broader concept was defined from the time of the conception of the survey: Identify community concerns and outreach improvement. Further refinement into dimensions, and indicators was accomplished using insights primarily from background research and input from Stevie Norcross, Adam Wingate, as well as Tabitha Benney, Associate Professor in the University of Utah Division of Public Affairs, who has extensive experience in Indigenous community engagement. Key concepts relevant to the survey construction were: Population characteristics: Identifying the characteristics of the target audience is crucial not only for this survey but for all community surveys. By collecting relevant demographic data such as zip code, age, gender, ethnicity, educational attainment, and income, the survey ensures that all key community groups are represented in the data. Moreover, it will help identify trends and patterns in responses across different groups, enabling comparison of community needs, attitudes, and perceptions. Relationship with the mill: Connections with the Mill, including work-related ties and physical proximity, may influence attitudes and perceptions towards the Mill. Comparing responses between workers’ families and non-workers, as well as those living closer to the Mill versus those farther away, can highlight differences in perception and identifying potential biases in responses. Perceived impacts: The perception of impacts associated with the Mill varies among community members, and it’s shaped by factors such as personal experience, historical context and access to information. However, background research showed that broader topics of interest for all communities are environmental, health, cultural, and material transport-related impacts. By capturing these perceived impacts through the survey, the DWMRC can better understand community concerns and design outreach tools or materials that address specific issues relevant to the different population groups. Information sources: One of the key goals of the survey is to identify where the target populations get their information from. Knowing which sources are most commonly used 20 will assist the DWMRC in understanding respondent’s attitudes and behaviors, as sources often influence people’s perceptions. In addition, it can help in assessing if potential outreaching channels could be explored. Communication preferences: Inquiring into respondents’ communication preferences, including both the topics they are most interested in and the channels they prefer, is key to achieving the DWMRC’s goal of improving outreach strategies. By understanding which topics are most relevant to the community, the division can tailor its content to address the concerns and interests of the communities more effectively. Additionally, identifying preferred communication channels, whether it's social media, emails, text messages, community meetings, or printed materials, allows the division to deliver information in a way that is convenient and desirable for the communities. Public Engagement and Accessibility: Understanding whether community members have engaged in discussions about the Mill helps the DWMRC assess current outreach efforts and identify barriers to participation. By gathering this information, the division can identify obstacles such as timing, location, accessibility, or lack of information that may prevent community members from participating and using these insights to adjusting communication channels. Appendix C presents the survey’s conceptual model, incorporating the key concepts discussed above. Structure Question placement and survey structure are important to attempt to avoid response bias and missing data (Aarons, 2021). Using the constructed conceptual model as a reference, the survey is recommended to follow this logical flow to ensure a structured and effective data collection process: • Section 1: Introductory Statement Incorporating the ethical considerations mentioned above, this section states the survey’s purpose, estimated time commitment, and clarifies confidentiality and voluntary participation. The objective is to ensure transparency, encourage participation, and set expectations for the questions that follow. • Section 2: Demographics Collects respondent background information such as age, gender, ethnicity, zip code, and education attainment to provide context for the responses. • Section 3: Relationship with the Mill This section aims to assess respondents' connection to the Mill by identifying their residential proximity and any work-related ties to its operations. • Section 4: Perceived Impacts 21 This section evaluates respondents’ perceived impacts associated with the White Mesa Mill across multiple domains (environmental, social, economic) to establish baseline knowledge and estimate community sentiment. To capture priority areas, a follow-up ranking-type question is included, allowing respondents to order the listed impact areas based on their level of perceived importance. • Section 5: Information Sources and Perceived Reliability This section aims to assess respondents’ perceived access to reliable environmental information about the Mill and to identify the sources they consult when seeking information related to it. • Section 6: Communication Preferences This section identifies the preferred communication platforms and topics that are most relevant to respondents. Additionally, including a question about preferred frequency for receiving information communication is also highly recommended to ensure updates are delivered at a pace that aligns with community expectations. • Section 7: Feedback This section allows respondents to express final thoughts, concerns, ideas, or feedback freely. Suggested Survey Administration Approach (For Future Implementation) Distribution Methods Surveys can be distributed in a variety of ways: face-to-face, by telephone, or through the mail. In the past decade, the use of online and mobile surveys has grown rapidly. This is a method the DWMRC is already familiar with, having used online platforms such as Qualtrics for previous surveys and polls. Thanks to their low cost, convenience, design flexibility, and efficiency in data analysis, online surveys are generally an ideal choice for distribution. However, analyzing the demographic profiles presented above, limitations must be considered. While internet and computer access exceed 90% in Bluff and Blanding, only 20% of White Mesa residents have internet access, and just 18 out of 27 households possess any type of computing device. Additionally, both Blanding and White Mesa have a predominantly older population, which would mean limited skills with digital technologies. Given these factors, a mixed distribution strategy is recommended—offering the survey both online and in paper format. This approach would accommodate community members who lack access to digital tools or who may not be comfortable responding online. Beyond promoting inclusiveness and fair representation. Moreover, it would also provide an 22 opportunity to engage directly with community members to address any concerns and encourage participation. A potential disadvantage of this method is that paper responses need to be manually entered into the online system for analysis, requiring additional time and effort from staff. Pre-Testing / Pilot Testing Noticing statistical anomalies or errors in questionnaire design is not uncommon, and this is especially unfortunate if they have been identified once the data has already been collected or is in the process of being collected. Running a pilot test on a small sample of respondents is ideal to help to detect and correct potential errors early on. However, this can require additional money and time. If allocating additional resource commitment is not within possibility, pre-test the survey on a proxy-community, or gather feedback from a few members of the target audience before the survey is sent out to the field. This can help minimize errors while also allows refining language, particularly through the incorporation of local knowledge and culturally appropriate terms. Sampling Strategy Sampling method Surveys are methods for identifying patterns for groups, with these patterns representing real patterns in a broader population ONLY if the sample is what is known as representative. To be representative, a sample needs to be an accurate representation of a broader population (Aarons, 2021). While no sample can perfectly represent a population, the use of a probabilistic sampling method increases the likelihood that a sample will be representative by ensuring that each individual has a known and non-zero probability of being selected. It would be ideal to employ a probabilistic stratified sampling, which involves partitioning the population into groups, or strata, and independently drawing a sample from each stratum (Singh & Mangat, 1996). It is recommended to use age as the primary stratum, specifically including only individuals aged 18 years and older from each community. Focusing on adults assures that the sample reflects the target population most relevant to the outreach efforts and focuses on individuals who are more likely to provide informed and meaningful responses. Additionally, these adults are the ones directly affected by property value changes, tax fluctuations, or land use decisions tied to industrial operations like the Mill. 23 Sample Size Based on the recommended sampling method and the demographic profiles presented above, the target population for each community is shown in Table 1. Note: The sample will include residents aged 20 and older, as it is currently not possible to obtain accurate data for residents aged 18 and above using the available census information. Total population 20 years old and older: Table 1 Total population 20 years of age and older in each community Community Population (Aged 20 and older) Blanding 2,216 Bluff 171 White Mesa 56 Total 2,443 Employing the Qualtrics sample size calculator, and using as inputs the target population total (2,443), a margin of error of 5%, a confidence level of 95%, (which are the widely accepted standard parameters for survey research) the sample size results in 332 individuals. Table 2 displays the proportional distribution of the sample size per community. Table 2 Sample size allocation per community Community Population (Aged 20 and older) Proportion Sample Allocation (n ≈ 332) Blanding 2,216 0.907 301 Bluff 171 0.070 23 White Mesa 56 0.023 8 Total 2,443 1.000 332 While proportional allocation suggests small samples from Bluff and White Mesa, here is an important consideration: After the meeting held on April 3rd with members of the San Juan County Board of Health, these two communities were identified as expressing the highest levels of concern, while Blanding residents hold more neutral attitudes towards the White Mesa Mill. To address this, it is recommended to oversample Bluff and White Mesa, as a means of capturing the voices of these more impacted communities, and which responses will be critical to shape effective outreach efforts. Oversampling maintains statistical rigor while 24 aligning with the outreach priorities of the DWMRC. Table 3 shows the suggested oversampling allocation. Table 3 Oversampled size allocation per community Community Population (20 years old and older) Proportional sample Oversampled allocation Blanding 2,216 301 210 Bluff 171 23 73 White Mesa 56 8 49 Total 2,443 332 332 The oversampling of each community should aim for a minimum quota of no less than 35 residents in each community for the sake of statistical analysis. Potential Execution Plan It is proposed to carry out a plan consisting of four phases: pre-survey, survey administration, monitoring and iteration, and data collection closure and acknowledgement. This plan was designed considering the local knowledge gathered during the development of this project. The steps are detailed in the following section. 1. Pre-Survey Phase a. Community engagement and partnership building Being a government agency, administering the survey while ensuring a high response rate may be difficult to achieve on its own; these communities, especially White Mesa and Bluff, have complicated historic backgrounds, as a result, government-led initiatives may be met with skepticism. When possible and appropriate, it is recommended to establish early partnerships with trusted figures, often referred to as “community gatekeepers”. Engaging these individuals can help build trust and encourage participation. Establishing these connections should be grounded in identifying and working towards common goals, which can foster long- term engagement. In the context of these communities, the San Juan County Health Department is identified as a community gatekeeper. The Department already has existing relationships with both the DWMRC and the communities, and it can help with promotion, logistics and possibly co-hosting events. Other potential valuable partners are local schools, which can also co-host events for informative sessions, and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Council. b. Build awareness before survey administration 25 Coordinate (if possible) with the San Juan County Health Department or local schools to organize an initial face-to-face informative meeting, which is the preferred channel for the communities. If feasible, share flyers or posters to promote it. c. Informative meeting / Listening session Host the first round of community meetings (also referred to as chapter meetings by locals) in each town’s community centers or schools to explain the survey’s purpose, goals, and how data will be used. Use this space to seek input from residents and address additional questions or concerns. Additional considerations: Accessing the community center in White Mesa is unlikely. Seek alternative gathering spaces but keep working towards gaining access to the center. Alternatively, consider hosting a joint meeting for residents of both White Mesa and Bluff in Bluff, if appropriate and accessible for both communities. 2. Survey Administration Conduct the survey during a second round of meetings. It is recommended to offer small incentives (e.g., grocery gift cards or food) to encourage participation. Displaying QR codes linking to the online survey in public and strategic locations, such as the post office, community centers, and local cafes may be useful. However, it’s not recommended to heavily rely on this approach, as local knowledge and the demographic profiles suggest that face-to-face engagement, where respondents are guided through the survey process, would be more effective. 3. Monitoring and Iteration Track participation rates by community and by demographic stratum (individuals aged 18 and over). Compare progress against the chosen target sample size. If participation rates fall short of the intended sample size, implement targeted outreach through additional meetings, reminders, or further incentives. Consider door-to-door outreach using involved community members to encourage participation. 4. Data Collection Closure and Acknowledgment Once a representative sample has been achieved, publicly thank all participants and those involved in facilitating the survey. Consider hosting a Town hall meeting to present the findings. Additional Partnership Considerations As a final note, while not required, partnering with an unbiased third-party entity, such as an academic institution with an active Institutional Review Board (IRB), like the University 26 of Utah, is highly encouraged. This partnership can not only facilitate the necessary approval for conducting the survey on behalf of the DWMRC, but also bring valuable expertise in survey methodology, cultural sensitivity, and ethical data collection practices. Furthermore, research entities often go beyond simply reporting back results; they actively work towards identifying solutions. Collaborating with a neutral third party may help respondents feel more comfortable providing open and honest feedback, which would improve the survey’s outcomes and add transparency to the results. Conclusions The development and implementation of a survey in Blanding, Bluff, and White Mesa presents a valuable opportunity for the Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (DWMRC) to strengthen its outreach efforts. These three communities, located near the White Mesa Mill, have expressed differing levels of concern regarding the facility’s operations. By following the evidence-based recommendations outlined in this technical summary, the DWMRC can gain meaningful insights into local perspectives, community concerns, and preferred methods of communication. The recommendations outlined in this summary are designed to support a respectful and inclusive process. The structured questionnaire, informed by local knowledge, survey methodology and designed for broad accessibility, will enable the Division to gather reliable data across the communities. The use of a stratified sampling strategy, with intentional oversampling in Bluff and White Mesa, ensures that the residents with the highest expressed concern are well represented in the survey results. Execution strategies focused on trusted local partnerships, in-person engagement, and flexible survey formats (online and paper-based) will help build trust and maximize participation. Collaborating with a neutral third-party administrator, such as an academic institution with an Institutional Review Board, can bring valuable expertise and encourage open, honest feedback from participants, which will enhance the survey results. The results of this effort will provide the DWMRC with a clearer understanding of community needs and expectations, enabling the Division to refine its outreach approach, prioritize resources, and inform internal decision-making. Finally, this work is especially valuable for the Division given the state’s current direction toward expanding nuclear energy. As Utah pursues nuclear power to support emerging industries such as AI, an increase in uranium mining and processing is anticipated, making effective communication and community trust more critical than ever. Rural and indigenous communities are likely to be among the most affected, which emphasize the importance of addressing past harms, improving engagement, and ensuring access to clear information that also helps dispel existing misconceptions about nuclear energy. 27 This project will serve as a strong foundation for future initiatives, including the development of educational materials and continued outreach efforts that support long- term, respectful relationships with impacted communities. Bibliography Aarons, H. (2021). A Practical Introduction to Survey Design. SAGE. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (2023). Retrieved from Health Consultation Evaluation of Radiation in Air and Water Near the White Mesa Uranium Mill, White Mesa, San Juan County, Utah: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha/WhiteMesa/White-Mesa-508.pdf ATSDR. (2023). Evaluation of Radionuclides in Air and Water Near the White Mesa Uranium Mill. Retrieved from https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha/WhiteMesa/UraniumMill-508.pdf Becenti, A. D. (2025, Feburary). Energy Fuels could begin shipping uranium ore across Navajo Nation as early as Wednesday. Retrieved from The Arizona Republic: https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2025/02/06/energy-fuels- could-start-shipping-uranium-ore-by-february-12/78200511007/ Carlisle, N. (2022, April). FOX 13 Investigates: Ute people alter way of life despite little evidence uranium mill is polluting. Retrieved from FOX 13 Salt Lake City: https://www.fox13now.com/news/fox-13-investigates/fox-13-investigates-ute- people-alter-way-of-life-despite-little-evidence-uranium-mill-is-polluting Clifton, J. (2016). Half Life: The Story of America’s Last Uranium Mill. Retrieved from Grand Canyon Trust. Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control. (2025). Uranium Mills. Retrieved from https://deq.utah.gov/businesses-facilities/energy-fuels-resources-usa-inc Dunphey, K. (2024, October). Calls to shut down the country's only uranium mill come to Salt Lake City. Retrieved from Utah News Dispatch: https://utahnewsdispatch.com/2024/10/04/white-mesa-uranium-mill-protest-in- salt-lake-city/ Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. (2018). Tailings Cells 5A/5B License Amendment Request. Retrieved from https://lf- public.deq.utah.gov/WebLink/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=416273&eqdocs=DRC- 2018-006864&dbid=0&repo=Public Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. (2022). 2022 Annual Tailings System Wastewater Sampling. Retrieved from https://lf- 28 public.deq.utah.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=83241&eqdocs=DRC-2022- 022017&cr=1 Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. (2025). Corporate. Retrieved from https://www.energyfuels.com/corporate/ Environmental Protection Agency. (2025). Radioactive Waste From Uranium Mining and Milling. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-waste-uranium- mining-and-milling Fields, S. M. (2006). White Mesa Archeological Sites. Moab: Nuclear Waste Committee, Glen Canyon Group. Geo-Logic Associates. (2015). Data Review and Evaluation of Groundwater Monitoring White Mesa Uranium Mill . Retrieved from https://www.grandcanyontrust.org/sites/default/files/resources/e_Geologic_Repor t_White_Mesa_Uranium_Mill.pdf Hufham, A. (2024, October 7). Utah has the last conventional uranium mill in the country. What does it do? Retrieved from The Salt Lake Tribune: https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2024/10/07/utah-has-last-conventional- uranium/ Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. (2024, February). Public Hearing United States: Impacts of uranium exploitation on indigenous peoples' rights. Retrieved from Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3RyqCsN2nQ&t=11405s International Atomic Energy Agency. (2021). What is Radon and How are We Exposed to It? Retrieved from https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/what-is-radon-and- how-are-we-exposed-to-it Ming , T. C., & Green, K. E. (2023). Survey Development A Theory-Driven Mixed- Method Approach. New York, USA: Routledge. NOAA Coastal Services Center. (2007). Social Science Tools for Coastal Programs Introduction to Survey Design & Delivery. Oldendick, R. W. (2012). Survey Research Ethics. Handbook of Survey Methodology for the Social Sciences. New York. Silversmith, S. (2025, January). ‘They don’t care about us’: Tribal town fights uranium mill’s expanding operations. Retrieved from Arizona Mirror: https://azmirror.com/2025/01/30/they-dont-care-about-us-tribal-town-fights- uranium-mills-expanding-operations/ 29 Singh, R., & Mangat, N. S. (1996). Stratified Sampling. In Elements of Survey Sampling (p. 103). Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. United States Environmental Agency. (2022). Retrieved from CERCLA Off-Site Rule Unacceptabilty Final Determination, White Mesa Mill: https://www.grandcanyontrust.org/sites/default/files/resources/EPA-final-White- Mesa-Mill-CERCLA-unsuitablility-determination-7-18-22.pdf United States Geological Survey. (2011). Assessment of Potential Migration of Radionuclides and Trace Elements from the White Mesa Uranium Mill to the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation and Surrounding Areas, Southeastern Utah. Retrieved from https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2011/5231/pdf/sir20115231.pdf United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (2021). Retrieved from https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/yellowcake.html Utah Division of Indian Affairs. (2023). Ute Mountain Ute . Retrieved from Utah Division of Indian Affairs: https://indian.utah.gov/ute-mountain-ute/ 30 Appendix A – White Mesa Mill Location Map 31 Appendix B – Questionnaire Draft Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control – Community Outreach Survey. Start of Block: Introductory statement Thank you for taking the time to participate in this survey. The Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control is conducting this study to gather community input and improve outreach strategies related to the White Mesa Mill. Your responses will help shape future communication efforts and ensure community voices are heard. This survey should take approximately [X] minutes to complete. Your participation is voluntary, and all responses will remain anonymous and confidential. We appreciate your valuable input. End of Block: Introductory statement Start of Block: Demographic information Page Break 32 Q1 What is your place of residence? o Blanding o Bluff o White Mesa o Other (Please specify) __________________________________________________ Q2 What is your US Zip Code? ________________________________________________________________ Q3 Choose one or more races that you consider yourself to be ▢ White or Caucasian ▢ Black or African American ▢ American Indian/Native American or Alaska Native ▢ Asian ▢ Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander ▢ Other ▢ Prefer not to say 33 Q4 Select your age group o 19 years old or under o 20 to 39 years old o 40 to 59 years old o 60 to 79 years old o 80 years old or older Q5 What is the highest level of education you have completed? o Some high school or less o High school diploma or GED o Some college, but no degree o Associates or technical degree o Bachelor’s degree o Graduate or professional degree (MA, MS, MBA, PhD, JD, MD, DDS etc.) o Prefer not to say 34 Q6 What was your total household income before taxes during the past 12 months? o Less than $25,000 o $25,000-$49,999 o $50,000-$74,999 o $75,000-$99,999 o $100,000-$149,999 o $150,000 or more o Prefer not to say End of Block: A Demographic information Start of Block: Relationship to the Mill Q7 Does your job or the job of any of your relatives depend on the Energy Fuel Resources Inc. White Mesa Mill? o Yes o No o Prefer not to say End of Block: Relationship to the Mill Start of Block: Perceived impacts Page Break 35 36 Q8 In your opinion, has the White Mesa Mill impacted the following areas in your community? Extremely negative impact Somewhat negative impact No impact Somewhat positive impact Extremely positive impact I don't know / Not sure Water quality o o o o o o Air quality o o o o o o Soil quality o o o o o o Traffic o o o o o o Transportation- related incidents o o o o o o Noise o o o o o o Health on community members o o o o o o Economic development o o o o o o Job opportunities o o o o o o Cultural and spiritual connections to the land o o o o o o Local infrastructure (roads, utilities, etc.) o o o o o o Wildlife o o o o o o 37 Page Break 38 End of Block: Perceived impacts Start of Block: Information sources Page Break 39 Q9 If you have questions about the White Mesa Mill, where do you typically get information from? ▢ Word of mouth (From friends, family, neighbors) ▢ Local or state news outlets (newspapers, TV, etc.) (Please specify which one) __________________________________________________ ▢ Social media (Facebook, TikTok, X, etc.) ▢ San Juan Department of Health ▢ Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control website ▢ Chapter meetings ▢ Tribal council members ▢ NGO's reports or publications (Non-Governmental organizations) ▢ Church leaders ▢ I haven't looked for information before ▢ Other (Please specify) __________________________________________________ 40 Q10 I believe there is enough reliable environmental information available about the White Mesa Mill. ▢ Strongly agree ▢ Somewhat agree ▢ Neither agree or disagree ▢ Somewhat disagree ▢ Strongly disagree ▢ I don't know / Unsure End of Block: Information sources Start of Block: Communication preferences 41 Q11 Which of the following topics would you like to receive more information about? ▢ Water quality ▢ Air quality ▢ Emergency plans in case of a spill or leak while transporting materials to or from the mill ▢ Environmental safety measures at the mill ▢ Potential health impacts related to environmental conditions ▢ How the Mill is regulated and what rules it must follow ▢ How the mill handles and protects important cultural or tribal sites ▢ How to submit questions and concerns ▢ Other (Please specify) __________________________________________________ 42 Q12 If you could choose, how do you prefer to receive information related to the White Mesa Mill? (Choose all that apply) ▢ Email updates or newsletters ▢ Text messages or mobile alerts ▢ Social media posts ▢ Chapter meetings ▢ Information on website ▢ Mail (Printed flyers or brochures) ▢ Local newspapers articles ▢ Other (Please specify) __________________________________________________ Q13 How often would you like to receive the information? o Biweekly o Monthly o Quarterly o Biannually o Annually o Only when major updates occur 43 Page Break 44 End of Block: Communication preferences Start of Block: Engagement 14 Have you ever participated in any public meetings, hearings, or discussions about the White Mesa Mill? o Yes o Maybe o No Q15 If informative community meetings were held about the White Mesa Mill in your town, would you attend? o Yes o No 45 Q16 What would prevent you from attending the informative meetings? (Select all that apply) ▢ Transportation issues - I have no way to get to the meeting ▢ Lack of childcare ▢ Not enough time to attend - Too busy with other commitments ▢ Language barrier - The meeting is not in a language I fully understand ▢ Feeling unwelcome - I don't feel comfortable attending ▢ Not interested in the topic ▢ Other (Please specify) __________________________________________________ Q17 Would you prefer meetings to be held in-person or virtually? o In-person o Virtual (Zoom, Google meet) o No preference Q18 What would be an optimal time for you to attend the meetings? o Weekdays o Weekends 46 Q19 What time of the day? o Morning o Afternoon o Evening Q20 What would make it easier for you to talk with the Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control about the White Mesa Mill? (Select all that apply) ▢ Clearer information about how to contact the Division (phone numbers, email, website) ▢ More opportunities to speak with the Division's representatives in meetings ▢ Easier ways to submit questions or concerns ▢ Having a local community member act as a liaison ▢ More time or flexibility for meetings or outreach events ▢ Other (Please specify) __________________________________________________ End of Block: Engagement Start of Block: Q21 Do you have any suggestions for how the Division of Waste Management can do a better job of sharing information with your community? ________________________________________________________________ 47 ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ End of Block: 48 Appendix C - Questionnaire Conceptual Model