DRC-2012-002549 - 0901a06880339545

DRC-2012-002549
ENERGYFUELS
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
225 Union Blvd. Suite 600
Lakewood, CO, US, 80228
303 974 2140
www energyfuels com
December 13,2012
Sent VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
Mr Rusty Lundberg
Division of Radiation Control
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
195 North 1950 West
P.O Box 144850
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4820
Re: Transmittal of Plan and Time Schedule under Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit
UGW370004 Part LG.4 (d) White Mesa Mill (the "Mill")
Dear Mr Lundberg
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 IG 4(d) for
Violations of Part IG 2 of the Permit Part IG 2 of the Permit provides that out-of-compliance
("OOC") status exists when the concentration of a pollutant m two consecutive samples from a
compliance monitoring point exceeds a groundwater compliance limit ("GWCL")
On November 15, 2012, EFRI submitted a letter to the Director under Part IG 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 3rd quarter of 2012 and indicating which of those
constituents had two consecutive exceedances during that quarter This Plan and Time Schedule
addresses violations of Part LG 2 of the Permit for the 3rd quarter of 2012
Please contact me if you have any questions or require any further mformation
Yours very truly,
ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES (USA) INC.
/Jo Ann Tischler
Director, Compliance and Licensing
cc David C Frydenlund
Harold R Roberts
David E Turk
Kathenne A Weinel
WHITE MESA MILL
State of Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit UGW370004
Plan and Time Schedule
Under Part IG 4 (d)
For
Violation of Part IG 2 for a Constituent in the Third Quarter of 2012
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc
225 Union Boulevard, Suite 600
Lakewood, CO 80228
December 13, 2012
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 3'** quarter of 2012 Part IG 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 Pemut
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 histonc data for the purposes of
establishing background groundwater quality at the site and developing GWCLs under the
Permit
As required by then Part IH 3 of the Permit, EFRI submitted the following to the Director of the
Utah Division of Radiation Control ("DRC") (the Director was formerly known as the Executive
Secretary of the Utah Radiation Control Board and the Co-Executive Secretary of the State of
Utah Water Quality Board)
• A Revised Background Groundwater Quality Report. Existing Wells For Denison Mines
(USA) Corp 's Mill Site, San Juan County, Utah, October 2007, prepared by INTERA,
Inc (the "Existing Wells Background Report"),
• A Revised Addendum — Evaluation of Available 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, Apnl 30, 2008, prepared
by INTERA, Inc (the "New Wells Background Report, and together with the Existing
Wells Background Report and the Regional Background Report, the "Background
Reports")
Based on a review of the Background Reports and other information and analyses the Director
re-opened the Permit and modified the GWCLs to be equal to the mean concentration plus two
standard deviations or the equivalent The modified GWCLs became effective on January 20,
2010
The Director issued a Notice of Violation and Compliance Order, Docket No UGWll-02 (the
"Notice of Violation"), dated May 9, 2011, based on the DRC findings from the review of the
Mill's first, second, and third quarter 2010 Groundwater Monitoring Reports The Notice cited
five violations of the GWDP, including a violation under the Utah Water Quality Act (UC 19-5-
107) and Part IC 1 of the GWDP, in that six contaminants have exceeded their respective
GWCLs, as defined in Table 2 of the GWDP, for two consecutive sampling events Section E 4
of the Notice ordered Denison Mines (USA) Corp to prepare and submit, within 30 calendar
days of receipt of the Notice, a wntten plan and time schedule for Director approval to fully
comply with the requirements of Part IG 4(c) of the GWDP, including, but not limited to
(i) Submittal of a written assessment of the source(s) of the six contaminants and multiple
wells listed in Table 3 of the Notice, including cadmium, manganese, selenium, thallium,
uranium, and total dissolved solids ("TDS")
(ll) Subnuttal of a wntten evaluation of the extent and potential dispersion of said
groundwater contamination
(ill) Subnuttal of a wntten evaluation of any and all potential remedial actions to restore and
maintain groundwater quality at the facility, for the point-of-compliance wells and
contaminants m question, to ensure that 1) shallow groundwater quality at the facility will be
restored, and 2) the contaminant concentrations in said point-of-compliance wells will be
retumed to and maintained in compliance with their respective GWCLs
On Febmary 14, 2011, EFRI submitted a notice (the "4th Quarter 2010 Exceedance Notice") to
the Director under Part IG 1(a) of the GWDP providing notice that the concentrations of specific
constituents in the monitonng wells at the Mill exceeded their respective GWCLs for the fourth
quarter of 2010 and indicating which of those constituents had two consecutive exceedances
dunng that quarter On May 13, 2011, EFRI submitted a notice (the "1st Quarter 2011
Exceedance Notice") to the Director under Part IG 1 (a) of the GWDP providing notice that the
concentrations of specific constituents in the monitoring wells at the Mill exceeded their
respective GWCLs for the first quarter of 2011 and indicating which of those constituents had
two consecutive exceedances during that quarter Some constituents had two consecutive
exceedances dunng the first quarter of 2011 that had not already been properly identified as
having had two consecutive exceedances in the first, second, or third quarters of 2010, as
identified in the Notice, or m the fourth quarter of 2010, as identified in the 4th Quarter 2010
Exceedance Notice In response to the Notice, EI^I submitted the Plan and Time Schedule
Under Part IG 4(d) for Violations of Part I G2for Constituents in the First, Second, Third and
Fourth Quarters of 2010 and First Quarter of 2011 dated June 13, 2011 ("Initial Plan and
Schedule") Although not subject to the Notice, the Initial Plan and Schedule also covered the
constituents m violation of Part IG 2 of the GWDP that were identified as being in violation in
the 4th Quarter 2010 Exceedance Notice and/or the 1st Quarter 2011 Exceedance Notice On
August 8, 2011, EFRI subnutted a notice (the "2nd Quarter 2011 Exceedance Notice") to the
Director under Part IG 1(a) of the GWDP providing notice that the concentrations of specific
constituents in the monitoring wells at the Mill exceeded their respective GWCLs for the second
quarter of 2011 and indicating which of those constituents had two consecutive exceedances
during that quarter On September 7, 2011, EFRI submitted the Plan and Time Schedule Under
Part IG 4(d) for Violations of Part IG2 for Constituents in the Second Quarter of 2011 dated
September 7, 2011 ("Q2 2011 Plan and Schedule") The Q2 2011 Plan and Schedule covered the
constituents in violation of Part IG 2 of the GWDP that were identified as being in violation in
the Second Quarter 2011 Exceedance Notice
Subsequent to the Febmary 14, 2011, May 13, 2011, and August 8, 2011 Notices, EFRI
submitted the following Exceedance Notices (the "Exceedance Notices")
• November 3, 2011 for Q3 2011
• Febmary 15, 2012 for Q4 2011
• May 11,2012 for Ql 2012
• July 27, 2012 for Q2 2012
In the four subsequent Exceedance Notices listed above, only one additional well was identified
as having consecutive exceedances of its respective GWCLs for any analyte The additional
exceedance, TDS in MW-31, was identified in the First Quarter 2012 Exceedance Notice dated
May 11, 2012 EFRI requested that no additional plan and time schedule be prepared and that
this exceedance be addressed in conjunction with the sulfate exceedances as described in the
June 13, 2011, Initial Plan and Time Schedule. DRC agreed with this request in conespondence
dated August 1, 2012.
Pursuant to the Initial Plan and Schedule and the Q2 2011 Plan and Schedule, EFRI subnutted a
Source Assessment Report ("SAR") to DRC on October 10, 2012 The SAR covered the
constituents in violation of Part IG 2 of the GWDP that were identified as being m violation
dunng all four quarters of 2010 and 2011 and the first and second quarters of 2012 pursuant to
the foregoing Exceedance Notices
On November 15, 2012 EFRI submitted a notice (the "3rd Quarter 2012 Exceedance Notice") to
the Executive Secretary under Part IG 1(a) of the Permit providing notice that the concentrations
of specific constituents m the monitonng wells at the Mill exceeded their respective GWCLs for
the 3rd quarter of 2012 and indicating which of those constituents had two consecutive
exceedances as of that quarter
This Plan covers the constituent that was identified as being in violation Part IG 2 of the Permit
in the 3rd Quarter 2012 Exceedance Notice for the first (the "Q3 2012 Consecutive
Exceedances").
2. CONSTITUENT AND WELL SUBJECT TO THIS PLAN
The following Q3 2012 Consecutive Exceedance has been identified as being m out-of-
compliance status under Part IG 2 of the Permit in the 3rd Quarter 2012 Exceedance Notice
Table 1
Constituent and Well Subject to this Plan
Constituent Monitoring Event POC Well GWCL Result
TDS 2nd Qtr 2012 (5/8/2012)
3rd Qtr, 2012 (8/1/2012)
MW-29 4400 mg/L 4600 mg/L
4420 mg/L
It should be noted that the Notice of Violation and the Exceedance Notices to date identify a
number of wells with consecutive exceedances of nitrate + nitrite and/or chloride, chloroform
and dichloromethane, and pH (less than the respective GWCLs for pH in a number of wells)
However, none of those constituents are included in the SAR which was submitted October 10,
2012, for the reasons stated in the Notice of Violation That is, chloroform and dichloromethane
are associated with the existing chloroform plume at the Mill, as contemplated in the August 23,
1999, DRC Notice of Violation and Groundwater Conective Action Order Nitrate + nitrite and
chlonde are associated with the mtrate/chlonde plume, addressed by the Draft Conective Action
Plan, dated May 2012 With respect to pH, a separate Plan and Time Schedule submitted April
13, 2012, was accepted by DRC as specified in a Stipulated Consent Agreement dated July 12,
2012 pH was addressed in a separate report submitted under separate cover dated November 9,
2012 as specified m the July 12, 2012, Stipulated Consent Agreement
3. CATEGORIES FOR ANALYSIS
Previously EFRI has categorized wells and constituents in several categories as follows
Constituents Potentially Impacted by Decreasing pH Trends Across the Site
Newly Installed Wells with Intenm GWCLs
Constituents in Wells with Previously Identified Rising Trends
Pumping Wells
• Other Constituents
TDS does not fall within any of the first four categories for analysis previously used for
assessment Therefore, it falls withm the fifth category, "other constituents"
3 1 Other Constituents
Analysis of indicator parameters in MW-29 in the pH report submitted to DRC on November 9,
2012, shows a significantly increasing trend m uranium Uranium in MW-29 was showing an
increasing trend, although it was not significant, at the time of the New Wells Background
Report Chloride, fluoride, and sulfate in MW-29 are exhibiting downward trends As discussed
in the pH report, decreasing chloride, as well as decreasing fluoride and sulfate indicate there is
no potential tailings cell leakage
4. PLAN
41 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
monitonng 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 SAR and pH report
which show that chloride, fluoride and sulfate in MW-29 are exhibiting downward trends, EFRI
believes that the Q3 2012 Consecutive Exceedance is likely due to background influences The
initial GWCL for TDS in MW-29 was set using the minimum eight data points and does not
accurately reflect the tme natural variation that would be evident with a larger data set There
are now 24 data points available, which will undoubtedly affect the outcome of the analysis
Therefore, EFRI proposes to continue accelerated monitonng for TDS m MW-29 while EFRI
prepares, and the Director evaluates, a Source Assessment Report which will include a
geochemical analysis of TDS and indicator parameters m MW-29, and if appropriate, a proposed
revised GWCL using all data available at the time of the analysis
4 2 Approach for Analvsis
The first step m the analysis will be to perform an assessment of the potential sources for TDS in
MW-29 to determine whether the exceedance is due to background influences or Mill activities
This assessment will include an analysis of TDS and indicator parameters chloride, fluoride,
sulfate, and uranium in MW-29 to determine if the behavior of the water m MW-29 has changed
since the time of the New Wells 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. Monitonng 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 TDS data from MW-29 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 m the SAR and the pH report, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
("EPA") has recognized the need to update compliance limits penodically to reflect changes to
background conditions
In 2009 guidance, EPA states.
"We recommend that other reviews of background also take place periodically
These include the following situations
• When periodically updating background, say every 1-2 years
• When performing a 5 -10 year pemut review
During these reviews, all observations designated as background should be evaluated
to ensure that they still adequately reflect cunent 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 enor 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 wananted "
and
"Site-wide changes in the underlying aquifer should be identifiable as similar trends
m 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 3 Experts Reports to be Prepared
The results of the statistical analysis and, if appropnate, recalculation of the GWCL will be
compiled as a SAR that will be subnutted to DRC within 90 days of the approval of this plan
The SAR will detail the results of all of the analysis to be performed and the conclusions to be
drawn from such analyses, including any proposed revisions to existing GWCLs Specifically,
the SAR will follow the format of the previously submitted SAR (October 10, 2012) and will
include discussions, results and conclusions of the analysis and appendices contmning the
following
A geochemical analysis of TDS m MW-29
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 TDS in MW-29
A geochemical analysis of Indicator Parameters m MW-29
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 withm 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 monitonng well means that contamination has
been introduced to groundwater in that well
With respect to MW-29, prelinunary analysis suggests that the Q3 2012 Consecutive Exceedance
of TDS represents natural vanation in background based on pnmanly on the decreasing trends in
indicator constituents, including chloride, sulfate, and fluoride
Background at the Mill site was recently thoroughly studied in the Background Reports, the SAR
and the pH report and in 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 vanability
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 TDS and indicator parameters to confirm that the out-of-
compliance status for TDS is due to variation in background which may not have been accounted
for a the time of the Background Report because of linuted available data The geochemical
analysis will be consistent with the Flowsheet