DRC-2013-002202 - 0901a0688037b1bc

ENERGY FUELS
Energy Fads Resources (USA) Inc.
225 Union Blvd. Suite 600
Lakewood, CO, US, 80228
3039742140
www.enerpvfuels.com
II DRG-2013-002202 II
Mr. Rusty Lundberg
Director
Division of Radiation Control
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
195 North 1950 West
P.O. Box 144850
May 7,2013
Sent VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4820
Re: Transmittal of Source Assessment Report for Total Dissolved Solids in MW-29
White Mesa Mil] Groundwater Discharge Permit UGW370004
Conditional Approval of December 13,2012 Plan and Time Schedule
Dear Mr. Lundberg:
Enclosed are two copies of Energy Fuels Resource (USA) Lie's ("EFRTs") Source Assessment Report
("SAR") for Total Dissolved Solids ("TDS") in MW-29 at the White Mesa Mill. TDS in MW-29 exceeded its
Groundwater Compliance Limit ("GWCL") in the second and third quarter of 2012. As required by Part
I.G.4(d) of the Groundwater Discharge Permit ("GWDF"), EFRI submitted a Plan and Time Schedule for the
assessment of TDS in MW-29 on December 13, 2012. Conditional Approval of the Plan and Time Schedule
was received by EFRI on February 7, 2013. Pursuant to the Plan and Time Schedule EFRI has prepared this
SAR.
This transmittal also includes two CDs each containing a word searchable electronic copy of the report.
If you should have any questions regarding this report please contact me.
Yours very truly,
ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES (USA) INC.
Jo Ann Tischler
Manager, Compliance and Licensing
CC: David C. Frydenlund
Harold R. Roberts
David E. Turk
Katherine A. Weinel
SOURCE ASSESSMENT REPORT
FOR TDS IN MW-29
WHITE MESA URANIUM MILL
Blanding, Utah

Prepared for:

225 Union Boulevard, Suite 600
Lakewood, CO 80228

Prepared by:
6000 Uptown Boulevard NE, Suite 220
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87110
May 7, 2013

Google 2009

Source Assessment Report for TDS in MW-29 White Mesa Uranium Mill, Blanding, Utah ES-i May 7, 2013
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is an assessment of the sources, extent, and potential dispersion of the specific
constituents at Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.’s White Mesa Mill Site which have exhibited
two consecutive exceedances of their respective Groundwater Compliance Limits (“GWCLs”).
This report also provides an evaluation of potential remedial action to restore and maintain
groundwater quality to ensure that Groundwater Discharge Permit (“GWDP”) limits will not be
exceeded at the compliance monitoring point and that, to the extent applicable, discharge
minimization technology and best available technology will be reestablished.
Given the recent analyses performed by INTERA Incorporated and other analyses and
investigations at the site, and as the results of the geochemical analysis will demonstrate, the
exceedances of total dissolved solids in MW-29 can be attributed to (1) natural background
conditions, and (2) the small sample size of the data set used to calculate the original GWCL in
Revised Addendum: Background Groundwater Quality Report: New Wells for Denison Mines
(USA) Corp.’s White Mesa Mill Site, San Juan County, Utah (INTERA, 2008). Therefore, a
revised GWCL has been proposed, which is based on all available data to date and has been
calculated in accordance with the Groundwater Data Preparation and Statistical Process Flow for
Calculating Groundwater Protection Standards, White Mesa Mill Site, San Juan County, Utah
(“Flowsheet”), which is included as an appendix to this Source Assessment Report.

Source Assessment Report for TDS in MW-29 White Mesa Uranium Mill, Blanding, Utah i May 7, 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... i
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ ii
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... ii
LIST OF APPENDICES .............................................................................................................. ii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .................................................................................... iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Constituents and Wells Subject to this Report ........................................................ 3
1.2 Source Assessment Report Layout ......................................................................... 3
2.0 CATEGORIES AND APPROACH FOR ANALYSIS .................................................. 4
2.1 Approach for Analysis ............................................................................................ 4 2.1.1 Other Constituents and Wells .................................................................... 5
2.2 Approach for Setting Revised GWCLs ................................................................... 6
3.0 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS............................................................................................... 7
3.1 Other Constituents and Wells ................................................................................. 7
3.1.1 Total Dissolved Solids ............................................................................... 7
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................... 9
5.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 10

Source Assessment Report for TDS in MW-29 White Mesa Uranium Mill, Blanding, Utah ii May 7, 2013
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Summary of Findings .............................................................................................. 9

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Location of White Mesa Mill Site
Figure 2 Location of Groundwater Monitoring Wells

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A GWCL Exceedances for First Quarter 2013 under the August 24, 2012
GWDP
Appendix B Geochemical Analysis for TDS in MW-29 B-1 Summary of Geochemical Analysis for TDS in MW-29
B-2 Comparison of Calculated and Measured TDS in MW‐29
B-3 Charge Balance Calculations for Major Cations and Anions in MW‐29 B-4 Descriptive Statistics for TDS in MW-29
B-5 Box Plot for TDS in MW‐29
B-6 Histogram for TDS in MW‐29
B-7 Linear Regressions of TDS in MW‐29
Appendix C Geochemical Analysis for Indicator Parameters in MW-29 C-1 Summary of Geochemical Analysis for Indicator Parameters in MW-29
C-2 Descriptive Statistics for Indicator Parameters in MW-29
C-3 Data Omitted from Statistical Analysis
C-4 Box Plots for Indicator Parameters in MW‐29
C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in MW‐29
C-6 Linear Regressions for Normally or Lognormally Distributed Indicator
Parameters in MW‐29
C-7 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Indicator Parameters Not Distributed Normally or Lognormally Appendix D Time Concentration Plot Comparison D-1 Time Concentration Plot Comparison for TDS in MW-29
D-2 Time Concentration Plots Comparison for Indicator Parameters in MW-29
Appendix E Flowsheet (Groundwater Data Preparation and Statistical Process Flow for Calculating Groundwater Protection Standards, White Mesa Mill Site (INTERA, 2007a)) Appendix F Input and Output Files (Electronic Only)

Source Assessment Report for TDS in MW-29 White Mesa Uranium Mill, Blanding, Utah iii May 7, 2013
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Director Director of the Division of Radiation Control
DRC State of Utah Division of Radiation Control

EFRI Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
GWCL Groundwater Compliance Limit
GWDP State of Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit UGW370004
GWQS Groundwater Quality Standard

INTERA INTERA Incorporated
mean + 2σ mean plus two sigma
mg/L milligrams per liter
Mill White Mesa Uranium Mill
SAR Source Assessment Report

TDS Total Dissolved Solids

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

Source Assessment Report for TDS in MW-29 White Mesa Uranium Mill, Blanding, Utah 1 May 7, 2013
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. (“EFRI”) (formerly named Denison Mines (USA) Corp.)
operates the White Mesa Uranium Mill (the “Mill”), located near Blanding, Utah (Figure 1),
under State of Utah Groundwater Discharge Permit UGW370004 (the “GWDP”). This is the
Source Assessment Report (“SAR”) required under Part I.G.4 of the GWDP relating to
violations of Part I.G.2 of the GWDP with respect to total dissolved solids (“TDS”) in
groundwater compliance monitoring well MW-29 (Figure 2).
Part I.G.2 of the GWDP provides that out-of-compliance status exists when the concentration of
a constituent in two consecutive samples from a compliance monitoring point exceeds a
groundwater compliance limit (“GWCL”) in Table 2 of the GWDP. The GWDP was originally
issued in March 2005, at which time GWCLs were set on an interim basis, based on fractions of
State of Utah Ground Water Quality Standards (“GWQSs”) or the equivalent, without reference
to natural background at the Mill site. The GWDP also required that EFRI prepare a background
groundwater quality report to evaluate all historical data for the purposes of establishing
background groundwater quality at the site and developing GWCLs under the GWDP. As
required by then Part I.H.3 of the GWDP, EFRI submitted the following to the Director (the
“Director”) of the Utah Division of Radiation Control (“DRC”) (the Director was formerly the
Executive Secretary of the Utah Radiation Control Board and the Co-Executive Secretary of the
Utah Water Quality Board):
• A Revised Background Groundwater Quality Report: Existing Wells for Denison Mines
(USA) Corp.’s White Mesa Mill Site, San Juan County, Utah, October 2007, prepared by
INTERA Incorporated (INTERA) (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 White Mesa Mill Site, San Juan County, Utah, November 16, 2007,
prepared by INTERA (the “Regional Background Report”).
• A Revised Addendum: Background Groundwater Quality Report: New Wells for Denison
Mines (USA) Corp.’s White Mesa Mill Site, San Juan County, Utah, April 30, 2008,
prepared by INTERA (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 GWDP and modified the GWCLs to be equal to the mean concentration plus two

Source Assessment Report for TDS in MW-29 White Mesa Uranium Mill, Blanding, Utah 2 May 7, 2013
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 DRC’s 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 I.C.1 of the GWDP, in that six contaminants exceeded their respective GWCLs, as
defined in Table 2 of the GWDP, for two consecutive sampling events. Section E.4 of the Notice
ordered EFRI to prepare and submit, within 30 calendar days of receipt of the Notice, a written
plan and time schedule for Director approval to fully comply with the requirements of Part
I.G.4(c) of the GWDP. In response to the Notice, EFRI submitted the Initial Plan and Time
Schedule (“Initial Plan and Time Schedule”) to address constituents that exceeded their
respective GWCLs for two consecutive sampling events in the first, second, third, and fourth
quarters of 2010 and the first quarter of 2011. The Initial Plan and Time Schedule was submitted
June 13, 2011. Subsequent to the Initial Plan and Time Schedule, EFRI submitted a Plan and
Time Schedule for the second quarter of 2011 (“Q2 2011 Plan and Schedule”) to address
constituents that exceeded their respective GWCLs for two consecutive sampling events in the
second quarter of 2011. The Q2 2011 Plan and Schedule was submitted on September 7, 2011.
In the first quarter of 2012, TDS in MW-31 was identified as exceeding its respective GWCL for
two consecutive sampling events. 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
correspondence dated August 1, 2012.
Pursuant to the Initial Plan and Schedule and the Q2 2011 Plan and Schedule, EFRI submitted a
SAR to DRC on October 10, 2012. The SAR covered the constituents in violation of Part I.G.2
of the GWDP that were identified in the Initial Plan and Time Schedule and in the Q2 2011 Plan
and Schedule.
On November 15, 2012, EFRI submitted a notice (the “3rd Quarter 2012 Exceedance Notice”) to
the Executive Secretary under Part I.G.1(a) of the Permit providing notice that the concentrations
of specific constituents in the monitoring wells at the Mill exceeded their respective GWCLs for
the third quarter of 2012 and indicating which of those constituents had two consecutive
exceedances as of that quarter. A Plan and Time Schedule for the third quarter of 2012
(“Q3 2012 Plan and Time Schedule”) covers the constituent that was identified as being in
violation of Part I.G.2 of the Permit. The Q3 2012 Plan and Time Schedule was submitted on

Source Assessment Report for TDS in MW-29 White Mesa Uranium Mill, Blanding, Utah 3 May 7, 2013
December 13, 2012. The Q3 2012 Plan and Time Schedule was approved by DRC in
correspondence dated February 4, 2013.
This SAR addresses the constituent that was identified as being in violation of Part I.G.2 of the
GWDP in the 3rd Quarter 2012 Exceedance Notice and as described in the DRC-approved Q3
2012 Plan and Time Schedule.
1.1 Constituents and Wells Subject to this Report
This SAR covers TDS in MW-29. TDS is the constituent identified as being in violation of Part
I.G.2 of the GWDP during the third quarter of 2012 pursuant to the foregoing Exceedance Notice
and the Q3 2012 Plan and Time Schedule.
1.2 Source Assessment Report Layout
An overview of Sections 2.0 through 5.0 and the appendices included with this SAR is provided
below.
A description of the approach used for analysis is provided in Section 2.0, and the results of the
analysis are presented in Section 3.0. Conclusions and recommendations are reviewed in
Section 4.0, and references are included in Section 5.0.
The appendices are comprised of the analyses performed for this SAR and are organized in the
following manner: Appendix A contains a table showing the exceedances (TDS in MW-29).
Appendix B contains the geochemical analysis performed on TDS in MW-29. Appendix C
contains the indicator parameter analysis performed on MW-29. Appendix D contains data plots
for TDS in MW-29 using all available data to date compared to the data plots from the
Background Reports, as well as current data plots of all indicator parameters and plots of
indicator parameters from the Background Reports. Appendix E contains the Flowsheet
developed based on the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (“USEPA”) Statistical
Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities, Unified Guidance (USEPA,
2009), and approved by DRC prior to completion of the Background Reports. Appendix F is
included on the compact disc that accompanies this SAR and contains the electronic input and
output files used for statistical analysis.

Source Assessment Report for TDS in MW-29 White Mesa Uranium Mill, Blanding, Utah 4 May 7, 2013
2.0 CATEGORIES AND APPROACH FOR ANALYSIS
Generally, out-of-compliance constituents and wells can be grouped into five categories:
1. Constituents in wells with previously identified rising trends.
2. Constituents in pumping wells.
3. Constituents potentially impacted by decreasing trends in pH across the site.
4. Newly installed wells with interim GWCLs.
5. Other constituents and wells.
This SAR addresses one constituent in one well (TDS in MW-29), neither of which falls into any
of the first four categories listed above. Therefore, the “other constituents and wells” category
will apply.
2.1 Approach for Analysis
The first step in the analysis is to perform an assessment of the potential sources for the
exceedance to determine whether the exceedance is due to background influences or Mill
activities. If the exceedance is determined to be caused by background influences, then it is not
necessary to perform any further evaluations on the extent and potential dispersion of the
contamination or to perform an evaluation of potential remedial actions. Monitoring will
continue, and where appropriate, a revised GWCL will be proposed to reflect changes in
background conditions at the site.
The assessment for potential sources for the exceedance was accomplished by performing a
geochemical analysis to evaluate the behavior of the constituents in the well in question to
determine if there have been any changes in the behavior of indicator parameters, such as
chloride, sulfate, fluoride, and uranium, since the date of the Background Reports that may
suggest a change in the behavior of that well.
As discussed in detail in Section 9.0 of the Existing Wells Background Report, chloride is the
best indicator of potential tailings cell leakage, followed by fluoride, and then sulfate (due to
mobility and abundance in tailings). Uranium is probably the most mobile of trace (metal)
elements and is the best indicator parameter for metals and radionuclides. Any potential seepage
from tailings impoundments would be expected to exhibit rising concentrations of chloride and
possibly fluoride, sulfate, and uranium. However, while uranium may be the most mobile of
trace (metal) elements, it is typically retarded behind chloride and would likely not be expressed
in groundwater until sometime after chloride concentrations had begun to rise. This is because
uranium is a metal cation and behaves as other metals with respect to pH. It is important to note,

Source Assessment Report for TDS in MW-29 White Mesa Uranium Mill, Blanding, Utah 5 May 7, 2013
however, that while the lack of a rising trend in chloride would indicate that there has been no
impact from tailings, a rising trend in chloride could also be due to some natural influences (see
Section 12.0 of the Existing Wells Background Report). Therefore, in situations where there is a
significant rising trend in chloride, other evaluations would need to be performed, such as a
determination as to whether any other indicator parameters have demonstrated a significant
rising trend and whether or not the concentrations and mass balance indicate a potential tailings
cell leak.
The geochemical analysis was supported by a statistical analysis that followed the process
outlined in the Groundwater Data Preparation and Statistical Process Flow for Calculating
Groundwater Protection Standards, White Mesa Mill Site, San Juan County, Utah
(“Flowsheet”) (INTERA, 2007a), a copy of which is provided in Appendix E. The Flowsheet
was designed based on USEPA’s Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA
Facilities, Unified Guidance (USEPA, 2009), and was approved by DRC prior to completion of
the Background Reports.
If it was determined through the geochemical analysis of the indicator parameters that the
behavior of MW-29 has changed since the Background Report, a mass balance analysis was
performed to evaluate the observed concentrations of the constituent in light of the
concentrations in Mill tailings and the presence or absence of any mounding at the location of the
well in question. Since MW-29 is not distant from the Mill’s tailings cells, a hydrogeologic
analysis was not performed to determine the plausibility of impact from Mill tailings.
If significant changes were identified that could not be attributed to background influences, then
further analysis was proposed to identify the source, extent, and potential dispersion of the
contamination, as well as to identify potential remedial actions. Additional analysis specific to
the “other constituents and wells” category is described below.
2.1.1 Other Constituents and Wells
TDS does not fall into one of the previous categories and has been included in the “other
constituents and wells” category.
Although TDS in MW-29 does not fall into any of the first four categories listed in Section 2.0,
the primary focus for the source assessment for MW-29 is the same as in those categories: to
determine whether or not there is any new information that would suggest that the previous
analysis conducted in the Background Reports has changed since the dates of those reports.
The first step for this category was to perform a geochemical analysis evaluating the behavior of
the constituents in MW-29 to determine if there have been any changes in the behavior of
indicator parameters, such as chloride, sulfate, fluoride, and uranium, since the dates of the

Source Assessment Report for TDS in MW-29 White Mesa Uranium Mill, Blanding, Utah 6 May 7, 2013
Background Reports that may suggest a change in the behavior of that well since the dates of
those reports.
If it was determined through the geochemical analysis of the indicator parameters that the
behavior of MW-29 has changed since the Background Report, a mass balance analysis was
performed to evaluate the observed concentrations of the constituent in light of the
concentrations in Mill tailings and the presence or absence of any mounding at MW-29.
2.2 Approach for Setting Revised GWCLs
If the foregoing approaches resulted in the conclusion that the previous analysis in the
Background Reports has not changed and that the out-of-compliance status of MW-29 is due to
natural influences, then a new GWCL was proposed for the constituent. In proposing the revised
GWCL, we have adopted the approach in the Flowsheet.
Appendix B-1 summarizes the geochemical analysis and presents the revised GWCL for TDS in
MW-29 based on an application of the Flowsheet. It is assumed that once a revised GWCL is
accepted for TDS in MW-29, accelerated monitoring for that constituent will cease.

Source Assessment Report for TDS in MW-29 White Mesa Uranium Mill, Blanding, Utah 7 May 7, 2013
3.0 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
This section describes the results of the analysis, a summary of which is provided in Appendix B-1,
Appendix C-1, and Appendix D.
3.1 Other Constituents and Wells
TDS in MW-29 was subjected to a geochemical analysis that compared current data and analysis
to the results of analysis at the time of the New Wells Background Report to determine if the
behavior of the well had changed since the dates of those reports. The primary focus of this
analysis was to determine whether or not there was any new information that would suggest that
conditions supporting the previous analysis conducted in the Background Reports have changed
since the dates of those reports.
3.1.1 Total Dissolved Solids
The concentration of TDS has been out of compliance in MW-29 for three consecutive quarters
in 2012. The results of the geochemical analysis of TDS in MW-29 show that concentrations are
not behaving differently than they were at the time of the Background Report. TDS in MW-29
was decreasing (not significantly) at the time of the Background Report. Appendix B indicates
that at the time of this SAR, the trend line for TDS is still slightly sloping downward (r= -0.02),
however, no real trend is observed. Chloride analysis at the time of the Background Report
displayed a decreasing trend that was not significant. At the time of this SAR, chloride is
showing a significantly decreasing trend. Sulfate concentrations are also showing a decreasing
trend, however the trend is not significant. Uranium concentrations are increasing in MW-29.
However, that trend is not identified as being significant in the Mann-Kendal trend analysis.
Further, without the increase of other indicator parameters, increasing uranium concentrations
can be attributed to natural influences at the site rather than any potential tailings cell seepage.
The foregoing geochemical analysis indicates that because there is not a rising trend in TDS and
the key indicator parameter chloride is decreasing, the groundwater in MW-29 is not behaving
differently than at the time of the Background Report. It is therefore appropriate to revise the
GWCL for TDS in MW-29 to better reflect natural background conditions. The major difference
between what the data show for TDS in MW-29 at the time of the Background Report and the
time of this SAR is that there are more data. At the time of the Background Report, although
there were ten data results, two were identified and removed as extreme outliers, resulting in the
GWCL for TDS being calculated using the minimum required eight results. At the time of this
SAR, 25 results are available.

Source Assessment Report for TDS in MW-29 White Mesa Uranium Mill, Blanding, Utah 8 May 7, 2013
At the time of the New Wells Background Report (using eight data points for analysis) TDS in
MW-29 was not normally or lognormally distributed. Non parametric statistics were used, and
according to the Flowsheet, the GWCL was set at the highest historical value of
4,400 milligrams per liter (“mg/L”). With 25 data points available at the time of this SAR, TDS
concentrations in MW-29 are normally or lognormally distributed, which allows the GWCL to
be calculated by adding the mean plus two standard deviations, for a proposed revised GWCL of
4,570 mg/L.
As a result, the out-of-compliance status of TDS in MW-29 is likely due to natural variations in
the well that were not recognized at the time of the background report due to a small sample size
(data set of eight results). For this reason, EFRI proposes that the GWCL in MW-29 be adjusted
to take into account additional data. The current GWCL for TDS in MW-29 is 4,400 mg/L. The
newly calculated proposed GWCL for TDS in MW-29 is 4,570 mg/L, which was calculated in
accordance with the Flowsheet as the mean + 2σ, based on all data available to date.

Source Assessment Report for TDS in MW-29 White Mesa Uranium Mill, Blanding, Utah 9 May 7, 2013
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Background at the Mill site was recently thoroughly studied in the Background Reports and in
the University of Utah Study (Hurst and Solomon, 2008). Both the Background Reports and the
University of Utah Study (Hurst and Solomon, 2008) concluded that groundwater at the site has
not been impacted by Mill operations. Both of those studies also acknowledged that there are
natural influences at play at the site that have given rise to increasing water trends and general
variability of background groundwater at the site. The focus of this SAR was therefore to
identify any changes in the circumstances identified in those studies. A geochemical analysis for
the indicator parameters in MW-29 was performed.
The results of the analyses show that there has not been a significant change in the behavior of
TDS in MW-29. TDS has not increased over time in MW-29, and the geochemical analysis of
indicator parameters indicates that there has been no impact in MW-29 from mill operations.
This means that the exceedances of TDS observed in MW-29 are the result of setting GWCLs at
the time of the Background Report using too few data.
Table 1
Summary of Findings
Well Out-of-Compliance Constituent Summary Path Forward
MW-29 TDS No significantly increasing trend in any of
the indicator parameters. Consistent with background conditions.
Revise GWCL

Based on these findings and the application of the Flowsheet, EFRI proposes a revised GWCL
for TDS in MW-29 of 4,570 mg/L.

Source Assessment Report for TDS in MW-29 White Mesa Uranium Mill, Blanding, Utah 10 May 7, 2013
5.0 REFERENCES
Hurst, T.G., and Solomon, D.K., 2008. Summary of Work Completed, Data Results,
Interpretations and Recommendations for the July 2007 Sampling Event at the Denison
Mines, USA, White Mesa Uranium Mill Near Blanding Utah. Prepared by Department of
Geology and Geophysics, University of Utah.
INTERA Incorporated, 2007a. Revised Background Groundwater Quality Report: Existing Wells for Dension Mines (USA) Corp.’s White Mesa Uranium Mill Site, San Juan County,
Utah. October.
––––––, 2007b. Revised Addendum: Evaluation of Available Pre-Operational and Regional
Background Data, Background Groundwater Quality Report: Existing Wells for Denison Mines (USA) Corp.’s White Mesa Mill Site, San Juan County, Utah. November 16.
––––––, 2008. Revised Addendum: Background Groundwater Quality Report: New Wells for
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.’s White Mesa Mill Site, San Juan County, Utah. April 30.
USEPA, 2009. Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities EPA
530/R-09-007.

FIGURES

Cell No. 1
Cell No. 2
Cell No. 3
Cell No. 4A
WildlifePond
WildlifePond

Mill Site
Cell No. 4B
MW-37
MW-36
MW-35
MW-34MW-33
MW-32MW-31MW-30
MW-29
MW-28
MW-27
MW-26
MW-25
MW-24
MW-23
MW-22
MW-21
MW-20
MW-19
MW-18
MW-17
MW-15
MW-14
MW-12
MW-11
MW-05
MW-04
MW-03
MW-02
MW-01
MW-03A
S:\Projects\IUC-001-01-001 Denison Mines\GIS\mapdocs\Task_4_NOV\Fig01_LocationMap.mxd Date: 9/14/2012
Figure 1Location of White Mesa Mill SiteWhite Mesa Uranium Mill
1,000 0 1,000500
Feet
Source(s): Aerial – NAIP Utah 2011;Wells – HGC, Inc., May 2008 report.
Legend
Groundwater Monitoring Wells
U T A HUTAH
White MesaUranium Mill
Cell No. 1
Cell No. 2
Cell No. 3
Cell No. 4A
WildlifePond
WildlifePond

Mill Site
Cell No. 4B
MW-37
MW-36
MW-34MW-33
MW-32
MW-31
MW-30
MW-29
MW-28
MW-27
MW-26
MW-25
MW-24
MW-23
MW-18
MW-17
MW-15 MW-14
MW-12
MW-11
MW-05
MW-04
MW-03
MW-02
MW-03A
MW-35
S:\Projects\IUC-001-01-001 Denison Mines\GIS\mapdocs\Fig02_TDSMW_29SAR.mxd Date: 5/7/2013
Figure 2Wells with GWCL exceedences during 3Q 2012White Mesa Uranium Mill
500 0 500250
Feet
Source(s): Aerial – NAIP Utah 2011;Wells – HGC, Inc., May 2008 report;
Legend
TDS exceedence
Monitoring Wells

APPENDIX A
GWCL Exceedances for First Quarter 2013 under the
August 24, 2012 GWDP
APPENDIX A
GWCL Exceedances for First Quarter 2013 under the August 24, 2012 GWDP
Source Assessment Report for TDS In MW-29
White Mesa Uranium Mill, Blanding, Utah
May 7, 2013
Monitoring Well (Water Class)Constituent Exceeding GWCL
GWCL in August 24, 2012
GWDP
Q1 2010 Sample Date Q1 2010 Result Q2 2010 Sample Date Q2 2010 Result
May 2010 Monthly
Sample Date
May 2010 Monthly
Result
June 2010 Monthly
Sample Date
June 2010 Monthly
Result
July 2010 Monthly
Sample Date
July 2010 Monthly
Result
August 2010 Monthly
Sample Date
August 2010 Monthly Result Q3 2010 Sample Date Q3 2010 Result
October 2010 Monthly
Sample Date
October 2010 Monthly
Result
Q4 2010 Sample Date Q4 2010 Result
December 2010 Monthly Sample
Date
December 2010 Monthly Result
MW-11 (Class II) Manganese (ug/L) 131.29 2/10/10 134 4/28/10 137 5/24/10 122 6/16/10 99 7/20/10 123 8/25/10 138 9/8/10 128 10/20/10 141 11/11/10 133 12/15/10 158
Manganese (ug/L) 2230.30 2060 2070 NA NA NA NA 1920 NA 1980 NA
Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 6.45 6.29 6.36 6.45 7.19 6.48 6.51 6.60 6.37 6.47
Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 6.53 7.2 NA NA NA NA 6.58 NA 6.36 NA
Cadmium (ug/L) 1.5 1.26 1.44 NA NA NA NA 1.4 NA 1.26 NA
Chloride (mg/L) 35 31 31 NA NA NA NA 31 NA 31 NA
Uranium 6.5 5.93 6.43 NA NA NA NA 6.57 NA 5.89 NA
Nitrate + Nitrite (as N)
(mg/L)0.62 1.3 2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.4
Uranium (ug/L) 41.8 58.7 66.7 37.4 36.6 34.4 71.8 72.7 37.5 30.4 29.6
Chloroform (ug/L) 70 700 1700 800 940 900 2800 2100 1000 1900 1400
Chloride (mg/L) 58.31 72 57 80 47 52 49 64 52 48 52
Field pH (S.U.) 6.74 - 8.5 6.59 7.18 6.36 6.98 6.45 6.39 6.60 6.61 6.49 6.45
Dichloromethane
(Methylene Chloride)
(ug/L)
519.9 NR 2.2 12 24 45 5.5 16 1.2
Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) (mg/L)2.5 16.1 15.8 17 15.3 7/21/10 16 8/24/10 16 15 15 15 16
Chloride (mg/L) 128 127 97 NS NS NS NS NS NS 111 NS 126 NS
Uranium (ug/L) 8.32 6.82 6.82 NS NS NS NS NS NS 7.10 NS 6.64 NS
Selenium (ug/L) 34 32 35.3 NS NS 7/27/10 33.5 8/24/10 35.6 32.6 32.4 32.2 30.5
Nitrate + Nitrite (as N)
(mg/L)5 21.7 22.5 5/21/10 23 6/15/10 21.1 7/21/10 20 8/24/10 22 21 10/19/10 20 20 20
TDS (mg/L) 1320 1150 1220 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 1330 NS NA 1320 NS
Chloride (mg/L) 143 128 128 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 139 NS NA 138 NS
Selenium (ug/L) 71 60.8 59.6 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 64.4 NS NA 60 NS
Sulfate (mg/L) 532 507 522 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 527 NS NA 539 NS
Manganese (ug/L) 200 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 698 NA
Thallium (ug/l) 0.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.14 NA
Molybdenum (ug/L) 10 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <10 NA
Gross Alpha minus Rn &
U (pCi/L)3.75 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2.6 NA
Selenium (ug/L) 12.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA
Uranium (ug/L) 7.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 27.2 NA
Manganese (ug/L) 289 NA 212 NA NA NA NA NA NA 275 NA
Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) 11.5 NA 7.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA 10.7 NA
Sulfate (mg/L) 838 NA 805 NA NA NA NA NA NA 792 NA
MW-2 (Class III)Gross Alpha minus Rn &
U (pCi/L)3.2 NS NA 4/27/10 1.2 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 11/17/10 3.5 NS NA
Selenium (ug/L) 37 NA 37.2 NA NA NA NA 35.5 NA 38.8 NA
Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 NA 6.14 (6.25)NA NA NA NA 6.39 NA 6.35 NA
Fluoride (mg/L) 0.68 NA 0.71 NA NA NA NA 0.63 NA 0.77 NA
Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 NA 6.23 (6.24)NA NA NA NA 6.42 NA 6.21 NA
Sulfate (mg/L) 3640 NA 3680 NA NA NA NA 3630 NA 3850 NA
Nitrate + Nitrite (as N)
(mg/L)1.3 NA 1.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.2 NA
TDS (mg/L) 5805 NA 5860 NA NA NA NA 5470 NA 5330 NA
Selenium (ug/L) 89 NA 81.4 NA NA NA NA NS NA 94.8 NA
MW-5 (Class II) Uranium (ug/L) 7.5 NS NA 4/26/10 0.39 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 11/11/10 11.6 NS NA
Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 NA 7.16 NA NA NA NA 6.62 NA 6.47 NA
Selenium (ug/L) 25 NA 25.7 NA NA NA NA 31.9 NA 27.6 NA
Selenium (ug/L) 128.7 NA 100 NA NA NA NA NA NA 99.5 NA
Iron (ug/L) 81.7 NA ND NA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA
Required Quarterly Sampling Wells
Q1 2010 Results Q2 2010 Results Q3 2010 Results Q4 2010 Results
9/8/10 10/20/10
NS NS NS NS NS NS
NS
NS
9/20/10 11/19/10
MW-31 (Class III) 2/9/10 4/20/10 9/13/10 11/9/10 12/14/10
NS
NS NS
NS
NS
MW-35 (Class II)11/30/10NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
MW-14 (Class III) 2/2/10 4/21/10 5/21/10 6/16/10 7/20/10 8/25/10
MW-25 (Class III) 2/26/2010 4/28/2010 9/8/2010 11/10/10
11/10/10 12/15/10
MW-15 (Class III)4/21/10 NS 11/11/10
MW-12 (Class III)4/27/10 9/20/10 11/19/10
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
MW-3A (Class III)5/4/10 9/21/10 11/22/10
Required Semi-Annual Sampling Wells
MW-3 (Class III)5/3/10
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NSMW-01 (Class II)5/5/2010 11/18/2010
11/15/10 12/15/10
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
MW-26 (Class III) 2/2/10 4/22/10 5/21/10 6/16/10 7/21/10 8/16/10 9/26/10 10/20/10
MW-30 (Class II) 2/9/10 4/27/10 5/21/10 6/15/10 9/14/10 10/19/10 11/9/10 12/14/10
Page 1 of 8
APPENDIX A
GWCL Exceedances for First Quarter 2013 under the August 24, 2012 GWDP
Source Assessment Report for TDS In MW-29
White Mesa Uranium Mill, Blanding, Utah
May 7, 2013
Monitoring Well (Water Class)Constituent Exceeding GWCL
GWCL in August 24, 2012
GWDP
Q1 2010 Sample Date Q1 2010 Result Q2 2010 Sample Date Q2 2010 Result
May 2010 Monthly
Sample Date
May 2010 Monthly
Result
June 2010 Monthly
Sample Date
June 2010 Monthly
Result
July 2010 Monthly
Sample Date
July 2010 Monthly
Result
August 2010 Monthly
Sample Date
August 2010 Monthly Result Q3 2010 Sample Date Q3 2010 Result
October 2010 Monthly
Sample Date
October 2010 Monthly
Result
Q4 2010 Sample Date Q4 2010 Result
December 2010 Monthly Sample
Date
December 2010 Monthly Result
Required Quarterly Sampling Wells
Q1 2010 Results Q2 2010 Results Q3 2010 Results Q4 2010 Results
Thallium (ug/l) 1.95 NA 3.73 NA NA NA NA 3.64 NA 3.57 NA
Sulfate (mg/L) 1938.9 NA 1950 NA NA NA NA 1930 NA 1910 NA
Field pH (S.U.) 6.25-8.5 NA 6.2 NA NA NA NA 7.23 NA 6.37 NA
TDS (mg/L) 3198.77 NA 3280 NA NA NA NA 3190 NA 3030 NA
Field pH (S.U.) 6.78-8.5 NA 6.61 (6.66)NA NA NA NA 6.93 NA 6.8 NA
Gross Alpha minus Rn & U (pCi/L)2.36 NA 0.9 NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.2 NA
Nitrate + Nitrite (as N)
(mg/L)2.83 NA 2.6 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2.4 NA
Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 NA 6.18 NA NA NA NA 7.05 NA 6.44 NA
Manganese (ug/L) 550 NA 184 NA NA NA NA NS NA 65 NA
Cadmium (ug/L) 2.5 NA 4.28 NA NA NA NA 5.06 NA 3.22 NA
Fluoride (mg/L) 0.36 NA 0.14 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.18 NA
Thallium (ug/L) 1 NA 1.3 NA NA NA NA 1.57 NA 1.09 NA
Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 NA 5.91 (5.78)NA NA NA NA 6.64 NA 6.1 NA
Nitrate + Nitrite (as N)
(mg/L)5.6 NA 5.8 NA NA NA NA 5.9 NA 5.7 NA
Chloride (mg/L) 38 NA 42 NA NA NA NA 42 NA 45 NA
Sulfate (mg/L) 462 NA 469 NA NA NA NA 461 NA 452 NA
Field pH (S.U.) 6.5-8.5 NA 6.78 NA NA NA NA 7.68 NA 6.89 NA
TDS (mg/L) 1075 NA 1160 NA NA NA NA 1060 NA 1110 NA
Gross Alpha minus Rn & U (pCi/L)2 NA 1.6 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2.4 NA
Chloride (mg/L) 105 NA 108 NA NA NA NA 106 NA 107 NA
Manganese (ug/L) 1837 NA 1550 NA NA NA NA NA NA 1510 NA
Field pH (S.U.) 6.1 - 8.5 NA 5.67 NA NA NA NA 5.91 NA 5.72 NA
Iron (ug/L) 1869 NA 1630 NA NA NA NA NA 1490 NA
Manganese (ug/L) 5624 NA 4820 NA NA NA NA NA 4890 NA
TDS (mg/L) 4400 NA 4400 NA NA NA NA NA 4390 NA
Field pH (S.U.) 6.46 - 8.5 NA 6.82 NA NA NA NA NA 6.17 NA
Gross Alpha minus Rn &
U (pCi/L)3.33 NA 4.5 NA NA NA NA 2.9 NA 8.8 NA
Field pH (S.U.) 6.4 - 8.5 NA 6.03 NA NA NA NA 6.33 NA 6.05 NA
Notes:
MW-18 (Class III)5/4/10 9/15/10 11/18/10
MW-23 (Class III)4/22/10 9/14/10 11/22/10
MW-19 (Class III)5/4/10 9/15/10 11/18/10
NS
11/12/10
MW-24 (Class III)5/6/10 9/21/10 11/17/10
MW-28 (Class III)4/19/10 11/12/10
MW-27 (Class III)5/3/10 9/14/10
MW-29 (Class III)4/27/10 NS NA 11/9/10
MW-32 (Class III)4/20/10 9/13/10 11/10/10NS NS NS
GWCL values are taken from the August 24, 2012 version of the GWDP.
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
9/14/10 NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Exceedances are shown in yellow.
NA = Not Applicable
NR = Required and Not Reported
pCi/L = picocuries per liter
Values in () parentheses are the field pH measurements for the resampled
ug/L = micrograms per liter
mg/L = milligrams per liter
NS = Not Required and Not Sampled
SU = Standard Units
Page 2 of 8
APPENDIX A
GWCL Exceedances for First Quarter 2013 under the August 24, 2012 GWDP
Source Assessment Report for TDS In MW-29
White Mesa Uranium Mill, Blanding, Utah
May 7, 2013
Monitoring Well (Water
Class)
Constituent Exceeding GWCL
GWCL in August 24,
2012 GWDP
January 2011 Monthly
Sample Date
January 2011 Monthly Sample
Result
Q1 2011 Sample
Date
Q1 2011 Result
March 2011 Monthly
Sample Date
March 2011 Monthly
Result
Q2 2011 Sample
Date
Q2 2011 Result
May 2011 Monthly
Sample Date
May 2011 Monthly
Result
June 2011 Monthly
Sample Date
June 2011 Monthly
Result
July 2011 Monthly
Sample Date
July 2011 Monthly
Result
Q3 2011 Sample
Date
Q3 2011 Result
September 2011 Monthly
Sample Date
September 2011 Monthly
Result
Q4 2011 Sample Date Q4 2011 Result
November 2011 Monthly
Sample Date
November 2011 Monthly
Result
December 2011 Monthly
Sample Date
December 2011 Monthly
Result
MW-11 Manganese (ug/L) 131.29 1/11/11 121 2/2/11 145 3/15/11 68 4/4/2011 148 5/10/2011 170 6/15/2011 121 7/6/2011 151 8/3/2011 118 9/7/2011 106 10/4/2011 112 11/9/2011 105 12/14/2011 100
Manganese (ug/L) 2230.30 NA 2020 NA 2140 NA NA NA 1990 NA 1960 NA NA
Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 6.37 6.22 6.76 6.63 6.37 5.83 6.4
6.23
(6 41)
6.50 6.71 (6.82) 6.63 6.84
Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 6.44 6.66 6.79 6.7 6.1 5.77 6.29
8/3/2011
8/30/11
6.42
(6.54)6.54 6.6 6.51 6.87
Cadmium (ug/L) 1.5 NA 1.34 NA 1.27 NA NA NA 8/30/2012 1.19 NA 1.27 NA NA
Chloride (mg/L) 35 NA 30 NA 31 NA NA NA 32 NA 32 NA NA
Uranium 6.5 7.02 4.77 6.8 5.56 6.72 7.06 6.74 6.37 5.96 5.27 6.56 6.1
Nitrate + Nitrite (as N)
(mg/L)0.62 0.2 0.25 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.9 0.6 2.4 0.9 1.3 2.3
Uranium (ug/L) 41.8 32 69.3 31.8 60.2 57.4 18.5 57.1 19.0 56.1 58.9 55.6 57
Chloroform (ug/L) 70 800 730 1200 390 1900 730 300 1000 1300 440 1200 1400
Chloride (mg/L) 58.31 52 59 64 64 54 39 64 60 66 61 55 62
Field pH (S.U.) 6.74 - 8.5 6.83 6.06 6.89 6.22 6.43 6.52 6.35
6.07
(6.58)6.71 6.82 6.75 7.1
Dichloromethane
(Methylene Chloride)
(ug/L)
5 <1.0 10 14 3.1 20 7 2.4 10 7.9 2.6 8.9 11
Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) (mg/L)2.5 15 2/1/11 16 17 16 16 17 17 14 16 16 16 16
Chloride (mg/L) 128 NS 134 NS 134 128 127 127 126 145 129 122 124
Uranium (ug/L) 8.32 NS 5.97 NS 6.49 NS NS NS 8 NS 9.83 NS NS
Selenium (ug/L) 34 36.2 34.7 34 44.4 38.3 38.7 32.4 39.7 32.4 36.6 36.8 38
Nitrate + Nitrite (as N)
(mg/L)5 19 21 22 21 20 22 22 20 21 21 21 21
TDS (mg/L) 1320 1240 1220 1250 1370 1290 1330 1280 1300 1300 1320 1290 1330
Chloride (mg/L) 143 NS 145 NS 143 143 145 148 148 148 145 145 148
Selenium (ug/L) 71 NS 64.6 NS 65.2 NS NS NS 66.2 NS 68.8 NS NS
Sulfate (mg/L) 532 NS 538 531 503 512 540 532 537 541 539 552 530
Manganese (ug/L) 200 NA 248 NA 369 NA NA 348 267 270 271 283 247
Thallium (ug/l) 0.5 NA < 0.50 NA < 0.50 NA NA NA 0.52 NA 0.57 < 0.50 0.63
Molybdenum (ug/L) 10 NA <10 NA <10 NA NA NA <10 NA <10 NA NA
Gross Alpha minus Rn
& U (pCi/L)3.75 NA 2.6 NA 3.7 NA NA NA 4.5 NA 4.4 4.7 4.2
Selenium (ug/L) 12.5 NA ND NA ND NA NA NA 9.3 NA 10.5 NA NA
Uranium (ug/L) 7.5 NA 12.7 NA 21.7 NA NA 24.2 18.3 22.3 20.1 24 23.6
Manganese (ug/L) 289 NA NA NA 4/11/2011 218 NA NA NA NA NA 206 NA NA
Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) 11.5 NA NA NA 4/19/2011 10.7 NA NA NA NA NA 7.82 NA NA
Sulfate (mg/L) 838 NA NA NA 4/11/2011 704 NA NA NA NA NA 713 NA NA
MW-2
(Class III)
Gross Alpha minus Rn
& U (pCi/L)3.2 NS NA 2/14/11 1.1 NS NA 4/12/2011 1.2 NS NA NS NA NS NA 8/8/2011 0.5 NS NA 10/5/2011 1.3 NS NA NS NA
Selenium (ug/L) 37 NA 40.5 NA 45.4 NA NA NA 46 NA 46.7 NA NA
Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 NA 6.09 NA 6.46 NA NA NA 6.32 NA 6.53 (6.83) NA NA
Fluoride (mg/L) 0.68 NA 0.69 NA 0.68 NA NA NA 0.96 NA 0.91 NA NA
Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 NA 6.05 NA 6.58 NA NA NA 6.19 NA 6.5 (6.92) NA NA
Sulfate (mg/L) 3640 NA 3730 NA 3350 NA NA NA 3560 NA 3750 NA NA
Nitrate + Nitrite (as N)
(mg/L)1.3 NA NA NA 1.2 NA NA NA NA NA 1.1 NA NA
TDS (mg/L) 5805 NA 5770 NA 5720 NA NA NA 5810 NA 5630 NA NA
Selenium (ug/L) 89 NA 99 NA 85.8 NA NA NA 88.5 NA 95 NA NA
MW-5
(Class II)Uranium (ug/L) 7.5 NS NA 2/14/11 29.5 NS NA 4/12/2011 7.16 NS NA NS NA NS NA 8/9/2011 0.5 NS NA 10/10/2011 4.52 NS NA NS NA
Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 NA 6.43 NA 6.67 NA NA NA 6.13 NA 6.7 (6.97) NA NA
Selenium (ug/L) 25 NA 39 NA 21.7 NA NA NA 25.4 NA 35.4 NA NA
Selenium (ug/L) 128.7 NA NA NA 116 NA NA NA NS NA NA 112 NA NA
Iron (ug/L) 81.7 NA NA NA <0.50 NA NA NA NS NA NA 137 NA NA
6/20/2011 7/6/2011 9/7/2011 10/12/2011 11/9/2011
9/7/2011
Q4 2011 Results
Required Quarterly Sampling Wells
Q1 2011 Results Q2 2011 Results Q3 2011 Results
12/12/201111/9/20117/5/2011 8/3/2011 9/8/2011
3/15/11 4/4/2011 5/11/2011
5/10/2011 6/15/2011
8/3/2011
MW-31 (Class III) 1/10/11 2/1/11
6/20/2011 7/5/2011 8/3/2011 9/7/2011 10/4/2011 11/8/20111/10/11
MW-3 (Class III)
9/7/11MW-35
(Class II)2/15/11 6/7/2011 7/20/11 8/30/2011
6/20/2011 7/6/2011
MW-25
(Class III) 1/11/11 2/2/11
MW-14
(Class III)1/11/11 2/7/11 3/14/11 4/4/2011
MW-15
(Class III)
MW-12
(Class III)
MW-3A
(Class III)
Required Semi-Annual Sampling Wells
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS8/11/2011 10/11/2011
NS
10/4/2011 11/9/2011 1212/2011
12/12/2011
10/4/2011
12/14/11
12/12/2011
12/14/2011
MW-01 (Class II)NS
NS
NS
MW-30 (Class II)
MW-26 (Class III)1/12/11 2/16/11 3/15/11 4/1/2011 5/10/2011
8/3/2011 8/30/11
NS
NS
NS
NS NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS NS
NS
2/16/11
2/15/11 4/13/2011
4/13/2011
NS
NSNS
10/10/2011NS NSNS
2/15/11 4/5/2011
NS
NS
4/12/2011NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
8/10/2011 10/10/2011
8/9/2011 10/6/2011
NS
10/11/2011 NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
3/14/11 4/11/2011 5/10/2011
NS NS
3/14/11 4/1/2011 5/10/2011 6/20/2011 7/5/2011 8/2/2011 9/6/2011 10/3/2011 11/8/2011
10/3/11 11/8/2011
Page 3 of 8
APPENDIX A
GWCL Exceedances for First Quarter 2013 under the August 24, 2012 GWDP
Source Assessment Report for TDS In MW-29
White Mesa Uranium Mill, Blanding, Utah
May 7, 2013
Monitoring Well (Water
Class)
Constituent Exceeding GWCL
GWCL in August 24,
2012 GWDP
January 2011 Monthly
Sample Date
January 2011 Monthly Sample
Result
Q1 2011 Sample
Date
Q1 2011 Result
March 2011 Monthly
Sample Date
March 2011 Monthly
Result
Q2 2011 Sample
Date
Q2 2011 Result
May 2011 Monthly
Sample Date
May 2011 Monthly
Result
June 2011 Monthly
Sample Date
June 2011 Monthly
Result
July 2011 Monthly
Sample Date
July 2011 Monthly
Result
Q3 2011 Sample
Date
Q3 2011 Result
September 2011 Monthly
Sample Date
September 2011 Monthly
Result
Q4 2011 Sample Date Q4 2011 Result
November 2011 Monthly
Sample Date
November 2011 Monthly
Result
December 2011 Monthly
Sample Date
December 2011 Monthly
Result
Q4 2011 Results
Required Quarterly Sampling Wells
Q1 2011 Results Q2 2011 Results Q3 2011 Results
Thallium (ug/l) 1.95 NA 3.49 NA 3.74 NA NA NA 4.0 3.39 NA 3.83 NA NA
Sulfate (mg/L) 1938.9 NA 1770 NA 1780 NA NA NA 1910 NA 2020 NA NA
Field pH (S.U.) 6.25-8.5 NA 6.27 NA 6.71 NA NA NA
5.95
(6 30)
NA 6.55 (6.63) NA NA
TDS (mg/L) 3198.77 NA 3250 NA 3250 NA NA NA 3190 NA 3220 NA NA
Field pH (S.U.) 6.78-8.5 NA 6.78 NA 7.03 NA NA NA 6.65 NA 6.88 (7.02) NA NA
Gross Alpha minus Rn & U (pCi/L)2.36 NA NA NA 0.5 NA NA NA NA NA 0.6 NA NA
Nitrate + Nitrite (as N)
(mg/L)2.83 NA NS NA 2.6 NA NA NA NS NA 4.0 NA NA
Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 NA 6.13 NA 7.14 NA NA NA 6.38 NA 6.56 (6.77) NA NA
Manganese (ug/L) 550 NA NS NA 32 NA NA NA NS NA 551 NA NA
Cadmium (ug/L) 2.5 NA 2.78 NA 2.61 NA NA NA 1.46 NA 1.78 NA NA
Fluoride (mg/L) 0.36 NA NA NA 0.19 NA NA NA NA NA 0.36 NA NA
Thallium (ug/L) 1 NA 1.42 NA 1.07 NA NA NA <0.50 NA 0.62 NA NA
Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 NA 5.73 NA 6.12 NA NA NA 6.45 NA 6.44 NA NA
Nitrate + Nitrite (as N)
(mg/L)5.6 NA 6 NA 6.4 NA NA NA 6 NA 6.3 NA NA
Chloride (mg/L) 38 NA 46 NA 43 NA NA NA 43 NA 44 NA NA
Sulfate (mg/L) 462 NA 455 NA 442 NA NA NA 424 NA 456 NA NA
Field pH (S.U.) 6.5-8.5 NA 6.71 NA 6.79 NA NA NA 6.39 NA 7.17 (7.24) NA NA
TDS (mg/L) 1075 NA 1090 NA 1190 NA NA NA 1090 NA 1110 NA NA
Gross Alpha minus Rn & U (pCi/L)2 NA 0.7 NA 1.1 NA NA NA 0.8 NA 1.5 NA NA
Chloride (mg/L) 105 NA 114 NA 109 NA NA NA 105 NA 143 NA NA
Manganese (ug/L) 1837 NA NA NA 1690 NA NA NA NA NA 1540 NA NA
Field pH (S.U.) 6.1 - 8.5 NA 5.69 NA 6.01 NA NA NA 5.78 NA 6.07(6.11)NA NA
Iron (ug/L) 1869 NA NS NA NA 3010 NA NA NA 1080 NA 1220 NA NA
Manganese (ug/L) 5624 NA NS NA NA 4900 NA NA NA NA NA 4800 NA NA
TDS (mg/L) 4400 NA NS NA NA 4080 NA NA NA NA NA 4280 NA NA
Field pH (S.U.) 6.46 - 8.5 NA NS NA NA 6.45 NA NA NA 6.20 NA 6.52 NA NA
Gross Alpha minus Rn
& U (pCi/L)3.33 NA 1.5 NA 4.6 NA NA NA 1.9 NA 3.7 NA NA
Field pH (S.U.) 6.4 - 8.5 NA 5.99 NA 6.14 NA NA NA
6.10
(6.20)NA 6.35 NA NA
Notes:
MW-18
(Class III)2/15/11 NS
NS
2/21/2011
MW-23
(Class III)
MW-19 (Class III) NS
2/9/2011NS
MW-27 (Class III)
MW-24
(Class III)
2/9/2011
MW-29 (Class III)
MW-28 (Class III)
4/5/2011
Exceedances are shown in yellow.
Values in () parentheses are the field pH measurements for the
ug/L = micrograms per liter
mg/L = milligrams per liter
NS = Not Required and Not Sampled
NR = Required and Not Reported
GWCL values are taken from the August 24, 2012 version of the GWDP.
MW-32 (Class III)2/9/2011NS NS NS NSNSNS NS4/1/2011 8/2/2011 8/30/11 10/3/2011
NS NS NS NS
7/20/3011 10/12/2011NS
NS
NS
NS8/4/2011 10/6/2011NS
8/4/2011 10/11/2011
NS NS
NS
2/10/2011
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
2/14/2011NS 4/11/2011
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
4/6/2011
NS
NS
4/5/2011
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS 4/18/2011 8/9/2011
NS
4/5/2011
4/5/2011
10/5/2011
8/8/2011 10/5/2011NS
NS
NS
8/10/2011
9/21/11 10/11/2011
NSNS 8/8/2011 10/5/2011
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NA = Not Applicable
pCi/L = picocuries per liter
SU = Standard Units
Page 4 of 8
APPENDIX A
GWCL Exceedances for First Quarter 2013 under the August 24, 2012 GWDP
Source Assessment Report for TDS In MW-29
White Mesa Uranium Mill, Blanding, Utah
May 7, 2013
Monitoring Well (Water Class)Constituent Exceeding GWCL
GWCL in August 24,
2012 GWDP
January 2012 Monthly
Sample Date
January 2012 Monthly
Result
Q1 2012 Sample Date Q1 2012 Result
March 2012 Monthly
Sample Date
March 2012 Monthly
Result
April 2012 Monthly
Sample Date
April 2012 Monthly
Result
Q2 2012 Sample
Date
Q2 2012 Result
June 2012 Monthly Sample
Date
June 2012 Monthly
Result
Q3 2012 Sample
Date
Q3 2012 Result
August
2012 Monthly
Sample
Date
August 2012 Monthly
Result
September
2012 Monthly
Sample
Date
September 2012 Monthly
Result
October
2012 Monthly
Sample
Date
October 2012 Monthly
Result
Q4 2012 Sample
Date
Q4 2012 Result
December
2012 Monthly
Sample
Date
December 2012 Monthly
Result
Sample Frequency
MW-11 (Class II) Manganese (ug/L) 131.29 1/26/2012 102 2/13/2012 154 3/13/2012 121 4/10/2012 132 5/8/2012 127 6/19/2012 122 7/11/2012 135 8/7/2012 166 9/19/2012 130 10/23/2012 161 11/12/2012 138 12/24/2012 137 Quarterly
Manganese (ug/L) 2230.30 NA 1790 NA NA 2360 NA 2100 2300 2140 2110 2100 1950 Quarterly
Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 6.36 6.57 6.51 6.97 6.73 6.90 6.89 6.58 7.08 6.83 6.52 6.60 Quarterly
Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 6.63 6.83 6.55 6.58 6.73 6.99 6.88 6.55 6.54 6.54 6.47 6.62 Quarterly
Cadmium (ug/L) 1.5 NA 1.31 NA NA 1.33 NA 1.24 NA NA NA 1.56 NA Quarterly
Chloride (mg/L) 35 NA 30 NA NA 30 NA 33 NA NA NA 28.8 NA Quarterly
Uranium 6.5 6.6 6.5 6.93 6.52 5.90 7.6 6.45 6.72 6.01 6.37 6.61 4.83 Quarterly
Nitrate + Nitrite (as
N) (mg/L)0.62 1.9 2/15/2012 1.2 3 3.4 2.9 2.3 1.9 1.6 1.8 3.5 0.55 1.46 Quarterly
Uranium (ug/L) 41.8 64.6 2/21/2012 59.4 31.2 42.2 18.2 66.0 28.4 67.4 64.9 26.9 56.8 51.3 Quarterly
Chloroform (ug/L) 70 1900 3300 2900 2900 1700 2400 8/16/2012 970 2200 2300 4720 4020 1250 Quarterly
Chloride (mg/L) 58.31 68 40 74 82 74 85 7/11/2012 78 78 67 2.62 52.9 65.9 Quarterly
Field pH (S.U.) 6.74 - 8.5 6.59 2/15/2012
2/21/2012
6.72 (6.91)
(6.71)6.39 6.88 7.00 (7.01) 7.00
7/11/2012
8/16/2012
7.10
(6.80)6.60 7.40 6.63 6.60 6.78 Quarterly
Dichloromethane
(Methylene
Chloride) (ug/L)
5 13 2/15/2012 24 27 20 10 16 8/16/2012 4.9 17 9.8 15.0 34.6 5.5 Quarterly
Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) (mg/L)2.5 17 17 18 17 16 15 17 18 16 16.2 18.5 17.2 Quarterly
Chloride (mg/L) 128 124 126 128 128 124 131 128 139 130 135 114 122 Quarterly
Uranium (ug/L) 8.32 NS NA 7.42 8.38 7.84 6.81 7.8 7.64 8.04 7.67 7.86 7.03 5.80 Quarterly
Selenium (ug/L) 34 1/24/2012 33.3 35 39.5 39.1 32.3 37 38.5 38.4 41.9 45.2 36 31.6 Quarterly
Nitrate + Nitrite (as
N) (mg/L)5 21 21 22 21 20 21.6 21 21 21 18 23.6 22.2 Quarterly
TDS (mg/L) 1320 1360 1240 1400 1380 1410 1460 1400 1400 1460 1320 1230 1270 Quarterly
Chloride (mg/L) 143 155 150 152 160 151 138 161 175 172 157 189 170 Quarterly
Selenium (ug/L) 71 NS 67.8 NS NS 70.2 NA 74 NA NA NA 76.9 NA Quarterly
Sulfate (mg/L) 532 539 538 517 547 532 497 529 571 561 545 557 664 Quarterly
Manganese (ug/L) 200 264 253 269 277 258 304 272 273 283 253 241 240 Quarterly
Thallium (ug/l) 0.5 < 0.50 0.65 0.71 0.59 0.66 < 0.50 0.57 0.61 0.54 0.517 0.554 0.5 Quarterly
Molybdenum (ug/L) 10 <10 <10 NA NA <10 NA <10 NA NA NA 30.4 NA Quarterly
Gross Alpha minus
Rn & U (pCi/L)3.75 6.5 4.1 6.2 4.1 4.5 4.9 3.5 4.2 5.4 4.31 4.23 6.5 Quarterly
Selenium (ug/L) 12.5 NA 19.7 NA NA 11.4 7.0 15.9 18.8 8.2 19.0 15.4 12.1 Quarterly
Uranium (ug/L) 7.5 16.1 24.7 24.9 22.4 22.2 22.5 24.5 26.2 22.9 22.4 21.8 21 Quarterly
Manganese (ug/L) 289 NA NA NA NA 176 NA NA NA NA NA 315 NA Semi-Annually
Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L)11.5 NA NA NA NA 10.3 NA NA NA NA NA 21.8 NA Semi-Annually
Sulfate (mg/L) 838 NA NA NA NA 659 NA NA NA NA NA 846 NA Semi-Annually
MW-2 (Class III)Gross Alpha minus
Rn & U (pCi/L)3.2 NS NA 2/22/2012 0.6 NS NA NS NA 5/9/2012 0.6 NS NA 7/16/2012 0.9 NS NA NS NA NS NA 11/27/2012 1.46 NS NA Semi-Annually
Selenium (ug/L) 37 NA 43.1 NA NA 52.8 NA 51.1 NA NA NA 58.9 NA Semi-Annually
Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 NA 6.63 NA NA 6.67 NA 6.99 NA NA NA 6.55 NA Semi-Annually
Fluoride (mg/L) 0.68 NA 0.86 NA NA 1.04 NA 0.96 NA NA NA 1.26 NA Semi-Annually
Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 NA 6.46 NA NA 6.68 NA 7.01 NA NA NA 6.35 NA Semi-Annually
Sulfate (mg/L) 3640 NA 3020 NA NA 3220 NA 3700 NA NA NA 2780 NA Semi-Annually
Nitrate + Nitrite (as
N) (mg/L)1.3 NA NA NA NA 1.1 NA NA NA NA NA 1.31 NA Semi-Annually
TDS (mg/L) 5805 NA 5690 NA NA 5730 NA 5720 NA NA NA 5610 NA Semi-Annually
Selenium (ug/L) 89 NA 65.8 NA NA 85.1 NA 99.3 NA NA NA 111 NA Semi-Annually
MW-5 (Class II) Uranium (ug/L) 7.5 NS NA 2/28/2012 18.6 NS NA NS NA 5/9/2012 1.23 NS NA 7/16/2012 0.75 NS NA NS NA NS NA 11/27/2012 0.402 NA Semi-Annually
Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 NA 6.81 NA NA 6.91 NA 6.98 NA NA NA 6.54 NA Semi-Annually
Selenium (ug/L) 25 NA 27.2 NA NA 19.6 NA 20.7 NA NA NA 23 NA Semi-Annually
Selenium (ug/L) 128.7 NA NA NA NA 152 NA 120 NA NA NA 117 NA Semi-Annually
Iron (ug/L) 81.7 NA < 30 NA NA < 30 NA < 30 NA NA NA <30 NA Semi-Annually
Q1 2012 Results Q3 2012 Results
7/11/2012
7/10/2012
7/11/2012
6/19/2012
6/18/2012
6/19/2012 8/8/2012
3/14/2012
8/7/2012 9/18/2012
8/6/2012 9/18/20124/9/2012 5/2/2012
5/7/2012 6/26/2012
4/12/2012
Q2 2012 Results
3/14/2012MW-14 (Class III) 1/24/2012
NS
NS
NS
NS
7/10/2012 8/8/2012 9/19/2012
7/18/2012
6/19/2012
NS NS
NS
4/10/2012
5/14/2012
5/2/2012
5/1/2012 NS
NS
NS
NS
7/17/2012
MW-3 (Class III)2/29/2012
MW-31 (Class III) 1/24/2012 2/13/2012
NS
NS 3/1/2012
MW-3A (Class III)
2/21/2012
MW-25 (Class III)
MW-30 (Class II)
1/24/2012
2/14/2012
1/25/2012 2/14/2012
3/14/2012 4/10/2012 5/2/2012
MW-26 (Class III) 1/25/2012 3/14/2012 4/11/2012
2/15/2012
Q4 2012 Results
Required Quarterly Sampling Wells
Required Semi-Annual Sampling Wells
NSMW-01 (Class II) NS NS
NS
NS
NS
NS 5/9/2012
5/15/2012
5/10/2012
NSMW-15 (Class III)
7/19/2012
7/17/20122/22/2012
MW-12 (Class III) 2/29/2012NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
11/27/2012
11/28/2012
11/29/2012
11/27/2012
11/14/2012
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
3/13/2012 4/9/2012
2/14/12MW-35 (Class II) 1/24/2012 3/13/12
11/27/2012
11/12/2012
9/19/2012
11/13/2012
11/6/2012
11/13/2012
12/18/2012
12/24/2012
12/26/2012
12/18/2012
12/18/2012
8/6/2012 9/18/2012
5/9/2012 10/23/2012
10/22/2012
6/18/2012 7/10/2012 8/7/2012 9/19/2012
10/24/2012 11/15/2012 12/24/2012
10/23/2012
10/22/2012
10/23/2012
NS
NS
NS
5/2/2012 6/18/2012 6/29/2012 7/9/2012
Page 5 of 8
APPENDIX A
GWCL Exceedances for First Quarter 2013 under the August 24, 2012 GWDP
Source Assessment Report for TDS In MW-29
White Mesa Uranium Mill, Blanding, Utah
May 7, 2013
Monitoring Well (Water Class)Constituent Exceeding GWCL
GWCL in August 24,
2012 GWDP
January 2012 Monthly
Sample Date
January 2012 Monthly
Result
Q1 2012 Sample Date Q1 2012 Result
March 2012 Monthly
Sample Date
March 2012 Monthly
Result
April 2012 Monthly
Sample Date
April 2012 Monthly
Result
Q2 2012 Sample
Date
Q2 2012 Result
June 2012 Monthly Sample
Date
June 2012 Monthly
Result
Q3 2012 Sample
Date
Q3 2012 Result
August
2012 Monthly
Sample
Date
August 2012 Monthly
Result
September
2012 Monthly
Sample
Date
September 2012 Monthly
Result
October
2012 Monthly
Sample
Date
October 2012 Monthly
Result
Q4 2012 Sample
Date
Q4 2012 Result
December
2012 Monthly
Sample
Date
December 2012 Monthly
Result
Sample Frequency
Q1 2012 Results Q3 2012 ResultsQ2 2012 Results Q4 2012 Results
Required Quarterly Sampling Wells
Thallium (ug/l) 1.95 NA 3.63 NA NA 3.51 NA 3.73 NA NA NA 3.2 NA Semi-Annually
Sulfate (mg/L) 1938.9 NA 1920 NA NA 1790 NA 1900 NA NA NA 1210 NA Semi-Annually
Field pH (S.U.) 6.25-8.5 NA 6.6 NA NA 6.59 NA 6.64 NA NA NA 6.51 NA Semi-Annually
TDS (mg/L) 3198.77 NA 3230 NA NA 3280 NA 3220 NA NA NA 3160 NA Semi-Annually
Field pH (S.U.) 6.78-8.5 NA 6.83 NA NA 6.86 NA 7.21 NA NA NA 6.71 NA Semi-Annually
Gross Alpha minus Rn & U (pCi/L)2.36 NA NA NA NA 0.9 NA NA NA NA NA 4.86 NA Semi-Annually
Nitrate + Nitrite (as
N) (mg/L)2.83 NA 3.9 NA NA 3.7 NA 4 NA NA NA 3.96 NA Semi-Annually
Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 NA 6.61 NA NA 6.74 NA 7.10 NA NA NA 6.61 NA Semi-Annually
Manganese (ug/L) 550 NA 51 NA NA 49 NA 117 NA NA NA 54.3 NA Semi-Annually
Cadmium (ug/L) 2.5 NA 2.25 NA NA 2.01 NA 4.7 NA NA NA 1.35 NA Semi-Annually
Fluoride (mg/L) 0.36 NA NA NA NA 0.14 NA NA NA NA NA 0.558
Thallium (ug/L) 1 NA 0.96 NA NA 0.74 NA 1.36 NA NA NA 0.666 NA Semi-Annually
Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 NA 6.03 NA NA 6.21 NA 6.45 NA NA NA 6.01 NA Semi-Annually
Nitrate + Nitrite (as
N) (mg/L)5.6 NA 6.4 NA NA 6.2 NA 6.7 NA NA NA 6.9 NA Semi-Annually
Chloride (mg/L) 38 NA 45 NA NA 46 NA 47 NA NA NA 44.2 NA Semi-Annually
Sulfate (mg/L) 462 NA 451 NA NA 446 NA 453 NA NA NA 451 NA Semi-Annually
Field pH (S.U.) 6.5-8.5 NA 7.24 NA NA 7.03 NA 7.40 NA NA NA 6.69 NA Semi-Annually
TDS (mg/L) 1075 NA 1140 NA NA 1170 NA 1150 NA NA NA 1070 NA Semi-Annually
Gross Alpha minus Rn & U (pCi/L)2NA2.3 NA NA 0.8 NA 1.2 NA NA NA 1.33 NA Semi-Annually
Chloride (mg/L) 105 NA 109 NA NA 114 NA 7/16/2012 105 NA NA NA 115 NA Semi-Annually
Manganese (ug/L) 1837 NA NA NA NA 1850 NA 8/1/2012 1660 NA NA NA 1680 NA Semi-Annually
Field pH (S.U.) 6.1 - 8.5 NA 6.22 NA NA 6.15 NA
7/16/2012 8/1/2012 6.38
(5.81)NA NA NA 5.98 NA Semi-Annually
Iron (ug/L) 1869 NA 1310 NA NA 1400 NA 7/16/2012 1270 NA NA NA 1350 NA Semi-Annually
Manganese (ug/L) 5624 NA NA NA NA 6140 NA 8/1/2012 5190 NA NA NA 5040 NA Semi-Annually
TDS (mg/L) 4400 NA NA NA NA 4600 NA 8/1/2012 4420 NA NA NA 4430 NA Semi-Annually
Field pH (S.U.) 6.46 - 8.5 NA 7.12 NA NA 6.47 NA
7/16/2012
8/1/2012
6.68
(6.45)NA NA NA 6.48 NA Semi-Annually
Gross Alpha minus Rn & U (pCi/L)3.33 NA 1.8 NA NA 2.4 NA 1.4 NA NA NA 2.97 NA Semi-Annually
Field pH (S.U.) 6.4 - 8.5 NA 6.57 NA NA 6.40 NA 6.72 NA NA NA 6.23 NA Semi-Annually
Notes:
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
7/18/2012
7/19/2012
7/17/2012
7/18/20125/10/2012
5/1/2012
5/8/2012
GWCL values are taken from the August 24, 2012 version of the GWDP.
MW-32 (Class III) 2/21/2012
MW-19 (Class III)2/28/2012
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
4/30/2012
5/16/2012
5/16/2012
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
MW-29 (Class III)
NS
NS
NSMW-23 (Class III)
MW-18 (Class III)
7/16/2012
7/9/2012
2/22/2012
MW-28 (Class III) 2/28/2012
MW-27 (Class III)2/28/2012
2/27/2012
2/20/2012
MW-24 (Class III)2/23/2012
5/8/2012 NS
4/30/2012
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
11/26/2012
12/13/2012
12/5/2012
11/29/2012
11/13/2012
11/14/2012
11/14/2012
11/6/2012
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Exceedances are shown in yellow.
Values in () parentheses are the field pH measurements for the
ug/L = micrograms per liter
mg/L = milligrams per liter
NS = Not Required and Not Sampled
NR = Required and Not Reported
NA = Not Applicable
pCi/L = picocuries per liter
SU = Standard Units
Page 6 of 8
APPENDIX A
GWCL Exceedances for First Quarter 2013 under the August 24, 2012 GWDP
Source Assessment Report for TDS In MW-29
White Mesa Uranium Mill, Blanding, Utah
May 7, 2013
Monitoring Well (Water Class)Constituent Exceeding GWCL GWCL in August 24, 2012 GWDP
January 2013 Monthly Sample
Date
January 2013 Monthly Result Q1 2013 Sample Date Q1 2013 Result March 2013 Monthly Sample
Date
March 2013 Monthly Result Sample Frequency
MW-11 (Class II) Manganese (ug/L) 131.29 1/23/2013 115 2/20/2013 139 3/20/2013 164 Quarterly
Manganese (ug/L) 2230.30 1930 2250 2110 Quarterly
Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 6.48 6.52 6.48 Quarterly
Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 6.65 6.62 6.41 Quarterly
Cadmium (ug/L) 1.5 NS 1.35 1.40 Quarterly
Chloride (mg/L) 35 NS 36.1 NS Quarterly
Uranium 6.5 5.97 5.39 5.68 Quarterly
Nitrate + Nitrite (as N)
(mg/L)0.62 1.66 1.38 1.61 Quarterly
Uranium (ug/L) 41.8 65.7 57.8 69 Quarterly
Chloroform (ug/L) 70 1270 1500 1340 Quarterly
Chloride (mg/L) 58.31 63.5 77 73.6 Quarterly
Field pH (S.U.) 6.74 - 8.5 6.51 6.71 6.70 Quarterly
Dichloromethane
(Methylene Chloride)
(ug/L)
5 6.49 5.53 8.31 Quarterly
Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) (mg/L)2.5 19.2 21.4 14.3 Quarterly
Chloride (mg/L) 128 128 129 126 Quarterly
Uranium (ug/L) 8.32 8.36 7.4 6.85 Quarterly
Selenium (ug/L) 34 37.2 42.3 39 Quarterly
Nitrate + Nitrite (as N)
(mg/L)5 22.8 19.3 19.1 Quarterly
TDS (mg/L) 1320 1270 1390 1420 Quarterly
Chloride (mg/L) 143 176 174 168 Quarterly
Selenium (ug/L) 71 NS 74.1 81.8 Quarterly
Sulfate (mg/L) 532 611 644 611 Quarterly
Manganese (ug/L) 200 247 272 246 Quarterly
Thallium (ug/l) 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.505 Quarterly
Molybdenum (ug/L) 10 NS <10 <10 Quarterly
Gross Alpha minus Rn &
U (pCi/L)3.75 6.62 5.09 9.51 Quarterly
Selenium (ug/L) 12.5 11.0 10.8 22.6 Quarterly
Uranium (ug/L) 7.5 23.6 21.3 22.1 Quarterly
Manganese (ug/L) 289 NA 173 NA Semi-Annually
Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) 11.5 NA 12.6 NA Semi-Annually
Sulfate (mg/L) 838 NA 761 NA Semi-Annually
MW-2 (Class III)Gross Alpha minus Rn &
U (pCi/L)3.2 NS NA 3/5/2013 1.06 NS NA Semi-Annually
Selenium (ug/L) 37 NA 51.8 NA Semi-Annually
Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 NA 6.20 NA Semi-Annually
Fluoride (mg/L) 0.68 NA 0.902 NA Semi-Annually
Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 NA 6.84 NA Semi-Annually
Sulfate (mg/L) 3640 NA 3480 NA Semi-Annually
Nitrate + Nitrite (as N)
(mg/L)1.3 NA 1.22 NA Semi-Annually
TDS (mg/L) 5805 NA 5750 NA Semi-Annually
Selenium (ug/L) 89 NA 88.7 NA Semi-Annually
MW-5 (Class II) Uranium (ug/L) 7.5 NS NA 3/11/2013 36 NS NA Semi-Annually
Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 NA 6.56 NA Semi-Annually
Selenium (ug/L) 25 NA 19.6 NA Semi-Annually
Selenium (ug/L) 128.7 NA 137 NA Semi-Annually
Iron (ug/L) 81.7 NA <30 NA Semi-Annually
MW-12 (Class III) NS 3/6/2013 NS
MW-15 (Class III) NS 3/5/2013 NS
MW-3A (Class III)NS 3/13/2013 NS
MW-3 (Class III)NS 3/12/2013 NS
MW-01 (Class II) NS 3/12/2013 NS
Required Semi-Annual Sampling Wells
MW-35 (Class II) 1/23/2013 2/26/2013 3/19/13
MW-31 (Class III) 1/22/2013 2/19/2013 3/19/2013
1/23/2013MW-30 (Class II)2/26/2013 3/20/2013
MW-26 (Class III) 1/24/2013 3/20/20132/20/2013
MW-25 (Class III) 1/22/2013 2/20/2013 3/19/2013
Q1 2013 Results
MW-14 (Class III) 1/23/2013 2/26/2013 3/20/2013
Required Quarterly Sampling Wells
Page 7 of 8
APPENDIX A
GWCL Exceedances for First Quarter 2013 under the August 24, 2012 GWDP
Source Assessment Report for TDS In MW-29
White Mesa Uranium Mill, Blanding, Utah
May 7, 2013
Monitoring Well (Water Class)Constituent Exceeding GWCL GWCL in August 24, 2012 GWDP
January 2013 Monthly Sample
Date
January 2013 Monthly Result Q1 2013 Sample Date Q1 2013 Result March 2013 Monthly Sample
Date
March 2013 Monthly Result Sample Frequency
Q1 2013 Results
Required Quarterly Sampling Wells
Thallium (ug/l) 1.95 NA 3.26 NA Semi-Annually
Sulfate (mg/L) 1938.9 NA 1270 NA Semi-Annually
Field pH (S.U.) 6.25-8.5 NA 6.35 NA Semi-Annually
TDS (mg/L) 3198.77 NA 3350 NA Semi-Annually
Field pH (S.U.) 6.78-8.5 NA 6.50 NA Semi-Annually
Gross Alpha minus Rn & U (pCi/L)2.36 NA 1.11 NA Semi-Annually
Nitrate + Nitrite (as N)
(mg/L)2.83 NA 3.61 NA Semi-Annually
Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 NA 6.37 NA Semi-Annually
Manganese (ug/L) 550 NA 137 NA Semi-Annually
Cadmium (ug/L) 2.5 NA 2.0 NA Semi-Annually
Fluoride (mg/L) 0.36 NA 0.355 NA
Thallium (ug/L) 1 NA 0.88 NA Semi-Annually
Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 NA 6.29 NA Semi-Annually
Nitrate + Nitrite (as N)
(mg/L)5.6 NA 7.94 NA Semi-Annually
Chloride (mg/L) 38 NA 50.3 NA Semi-Annually
Sulfate (mg/L) 462 NA 431 NA Semi-Annually
Field pH (S.U.) 6.5-8.5 NA 7.03 NA Semi-Annually
TDS (mg/L) 1075 NA 1140 NA Semi-Annually
Gross Alpha minus Rn & U (pCi/L)2 NA <1.0 NA Semi-Annually
Chloride (mg/L) 105 NA 110 NA Semi-Annually
Manganese (ug/L) 1837 NA 1680 NA Semi-Annually
Field pH (S.U.) 6.1 - 8.5 NA 6.00 NA Semi-Annually
Iron (ug/L) 1869 NA 1350 NA Semi-Annually
Manganese (ug/L) 5624 NA 5340 NA Semi-Annually
TDS (mg/L) 4400 NA 4500 NA Semi-Annually
Field pH (S.U.) 6.46 - 8.5 NA 6.36 NA Semi-Annually
Gross Alpha minus Rn & U (pCi/L)3.33 NA 5.02 NA Semi-Annually
Field pH (S.U.) 6.4 - 8.5 NA 6.52 NA Semi-Annually
Notes:
MW-32 (Class III) NS 2/19/2013 NS
MW-29 (Class III) NS 3/6/2013 NS
MW-28 (Class III) NS 3/5/2013 NS
MW-27 (Class III)NS 2/25/2013 NS
MW-24 (Class III)NS 3/13/2013 NS
MW-23 (Class III) NS 3/11/2013 NS
MW-19 (Class III)NS 3/13/2013 NS
MW-18 (Class III)NS 2/25/2013 NS
GWCL values are taken from the August 24, 2012 version of the GWDP.
Exceedances are shown in yellow.
Values in () parentheses are the field pH measurements for the resampled analyses.
ug/L = micrograms per liter
mg/L = milligrams per liter
NS = Not Required and Not Sampled
NR = Required and Not Reported
NA = Not Applicable
pCi/L = picocuries per liter
SU = Standard Units
Page 8 of 8

APPENDIX B
Geochemical Analysis for TDS in MW-29
Appendix B-1: Summary of Geochemical Analysis for TDS in MW-29
Wp
Normally or
Lognormally
distributed? r
2 p
Flowsheet GWCL
Rationale
MW-29 TDS 25 0 4347 112 0.9485 0.2314 Yes 0.0006 0.908 No No 4600 4570 4400 4400 4570 Mean +2SD
Notes:
σ = sigma N = number of valid data points
%ND = percent of non-detected values p = probability
µg/L = micrograms per liter W = Shapiro Wilk test value
mg/L = milligrams per liter r2 = The measure of how well the trendline fits the data where r2=1 represents a perfect fit.
Distribution = Distribution as determined by the Shapiro-Wilk distribution test for constituents with % Detect > 50% and N>8
Mean = The arithmatic, Cohen, or Aitchison mean as determined for normally or log-normally distributed constituents with % Detect > 50%
Standard Deviation = The standard deviation as determined for normally or log-normally distributed constituents with % Detect > 85%
Highest Historical Value = The highest observed value for constituents with % Detect < 50%
Significant
Trend
Previously
Identified
Increasing
Trend?
Flowsheet
GWCL
Standard
Deviation
Shapiro-Wilks Test for Normality
Well Constituent N
% Non-
Detected
Values Mean
Highest
Historical
Value
(HHV) Mean + 2σ
BKG Rpt
Proposed
GWCL
Current
GWCL
Least Squares
Regression Trend
Analysis
APPENDIX B
Geochemical Analysis for TDS in MW-29
Source Assessment Report
for TDS in MW-29
May 7, 2013
Page 1 of 7
Appendix B‐2 Comparison of Calculated and Measured TDS in MW‐29
Well Date
CO3+HCO3 as
Alkalinity
(mg/L)
Calcium
(mg/L)
Chloride
(mg/L)
Potassium
(mg/L)
Magnesium
(mg/L)
Sodium
(mg/L)
Sulfate
(mg/L)
Measured
TDS (mg/L)
Calculated
TDS (mg/L)Ratio
MW‐29 3/19/2008 345 461 39 17.2 206 466 2840 4430 4374.2 98.74%
MW‐29 6/3/2008 321 470 38 16.8 218 486 2840 4190 4389.8 104.77%
MW‐29 8/5/2008 330 524 35 17.5 238 494 2810 4340 4448.5 102.50%
MW‐29 11/5/2008 328 518 32 18.1 231 508 2920 4380 4555.1 104.00%
MW‐29 2/3/2009 331 508 31 13.7 228 377 2710 4180 4198.7 100.45%
MW‐29 5/13/2009 339 437 30 15.2 201 439 2790 4260 4251.2 99.79%
MW‐29 8/24/2009 349 496 34 17.5 220 501 2720 4230 4337.5 102.54%
MW‐29 10/26/2009 352 488 35 17 216 455 2960 4260 4523 106.17%
MW‐29 4/27/2010 358 506 35 17.4 225 516 2770 4400 4427 100.62%
MW‐29 11/9/2010 355 470 39 17.4 211 454 2690 4390 4236 96.50%
MW‐29 4/5/2011 351 482 38 17.3 213 496 2600 4080 4197 102.88%
MW‐29 10/5/2011 327 476 37 16.7 213 435 2850 4280 4355 101.75%
MW‐29 5/8/2012 347 496 40 19.9 227 487 2750 4600 4367 94.93%
MW‐29 11/14/2012 283 483 36.9 17.2 219 487 1340 4430 2866 64.70%
APPENDIX B
Geochemical Analysis for TDS in MW-29
Source Assessment Report
for TDS in MW-29
May 7, 2013
Page 2 of 7
Appendix B‐3 Charge Balance Calcultions for Major Cations and Anions in MW‐29
Well Date
Calcium
(meq/L)
Sodium
(meq/L)
Magnesium
(meq/L)
Potassium
(meq/L)
Total
Cation
Charge
(meq/L)
HCO3
(meq/L)
Chloride
(meq/L)
SO4
(meq/L)
Total Anion
Charge
(meq/L)
Percent
Difference
MW‐29 3/19/2008 23.00 20.27 16.95 0.44 60.66 ‐5.65 ‐1.10 ‐59.13 ‐65.88 ‐8.61%
MW‐29 6/3/2008 23.45 21.14 17.94 0.43 62.96 ‐5.26 ‐1.07 ‐59.13 ‐65.46 ‐3.98%
MW‐29 8/5/2008 26.15 21.49 19.58 0.45 67.66 ‐5.41 ‐0.99 ‐58.51 ‐64.90 4.08%
MW‐29 11/5/2008 25.85 22.10 19.00 0.46 67.41 ‐5.38 ‐0.90 ‐60.80 ‐67.07 0.50%
MW‐29 2/3/2009 25.35 16.40 18.76 0.35 60.86 ‐5.42 ‐0.87 ‐56.42 ‐62.72 ‐3.07%
MW‐29 5/13/2009 21.81 19.10 16.54 0.39 57.83 ‐5.56 ‐0.85 ‐58.09 ‐64.49 ‐11.52%
MW‐29 8/24/2009 24.75 21.79 18.10 0.45 65.09 ‐5.72 ‐0.96 ‐56.63 ‐63.31 2.73%
MW‐29 10/26/2009 24.35 19.79 17.77 0.43 62.35 ‐5.77 ‐0.99 ‐61.63 ‐68.38 ‐9.68%
MW‐29 4/27/2010 25.25 22.44 18.51 0.45 66.65 ‐5.87 ‐0.99 ‐57.67 ‐64.53 3.19%
MW‐29 11/9/2010 23.45 19.75 17.36 0.45 61.00 ‐5.82 ‐1.10 ‐56.01 ‐62.92 ‐3.15%
MW‐29 4/5/2011 24.05 21.57 17.52 0.44 63.59 ‐5.75 ‐1.07 ‐54.13 ‐60.96 4.14%
MW‐29 10/5/2011 23.75 18.92 17.52 0.43 60.62 ‐5.36 ‐1.04 ‐59.34 ‐65.74 ‐8.44%
MW‐29 5/8/2012 24.75 21.18 18.68 0.51 65.12 ‐5.69 ‐1.13 ‐57.26 ‐64.07 1.61%
MW‐29 11/14/2012 24.10 21.18 18.02 0.44 63.74 ‐4.64 ‐1.04 ‐27.90 ‐33.58 47.32%
Notes:
HCO3 = Bicarbonate
SO4 = Sulfate
meq/L= milliequivalent per liter
APPENDIX B
Geochemical Analysis for TDS in MW-29
Source Assessment Report
for TDS in MW-29
May 7, 2013
Page 3 of 7
Appendix B-4 Descriptive Statistics for TDS in MW-29
N Mean
Geometric
Mean
Standard
Deviation Q25 Median Q75 Minimum Maximum Range Skewness
2013 All 25 4347 4346 112 4260 4380 4400 4080 4600 520 -0.26
Bkgr rpt Without extremes 8 4380 4380 27 4375 4385 4400 4320 4400 80 -1.9
Bkgr rpt All 10 4381 4381 68 4370 4385 4400 4250 4520 270 0.1
Data Set
APPENDIX B
Geochemical Analysis for TDS in MW-29
Source Assessment Report
for TDS in MW-29
May 7, 2013
Page 4 of 7
Appendix B‐5 Box Plot for TDS in MW‐29
Box Plot
TDS in MW-29
4000
4100
4200
4300
4400
4500
4600
4700
To
t
a
l

D
i
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

S
o
l
i
d
s

(
m
g
/
L
)
Median = 4380
25%-75% = (4260, 4400) Non-Outlier Range = (4080, 4600) Outliers
Extremes
Source Assessment Report
TDS in MW-29
May 7, 2013
$33(1',; % 
*HRFKHPLFDO $QDO\VLV IRU 7'6 LQ 0: 
3DJH  RI 
Appendix B‐6 Histogram for TDS in MW‐29
Histogram TDS in MW-29
SW-W = 0.9485, p = 0.2314
3.60 3.61 3.62 3.63 3.64 3.65 3.66 3.67
Log Transformed Result
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
No

o
f

o
b
s
Source Assessment Report
TDS in MW-29
May 7, 2013
$33(1',; % 
*HRFKHPLFDO $QDO\VLV IRU 7'6 LQ 0: 
3DJH  RI 
Appendix B‐7 Linear Regression of TDS in MW‐29
Linear RegressionTDS in MW-29
r = -0.0244, p = 0.9080; r2 = 0.0006
1/14/04 5/28/05 10/10/06 2/22/08 7/6/09 11/18/10 4/1/12 8/14/13
Date Sampled
4000
4100
4200
4300
4400
4500
4600
4700
To
t
a
l

D
i
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

S
o
l
i
d
s

(
m
g
/
L
)
Source Assessment Report
TDS in MW-29
May 7, 2013
$33(1',; % 
*HRFKHPLFDO $QDO\VLV IRU 7'6 LQ 0: 
3DJH  RI 

APPENDIX C
Geochemical Analysis for Indicator Parameters in MW-29
Appendix C-1: Summary of Geochemical Analysis for Indicator Parameters in MW-29
Wp
Normally or
Lognormally
distributed? r
2 pSp
MW-29 Chloride (mg/L) 24 0 37 3 0.8996 0.0211 No -67 0.049 No DecreasingMW-29 Fluoride (mg/L) 23 0 0.792 0.063 0.9669 0.6146 Yes 0.239 0.0179 No DecreasingMW-29 Sulfate (mg/L) 23 0 2787 89 0.9627 0.519 Yes 0.011 0.6363 No No
MW-29 Uranium (µg/L) 23 0 11 0.96 0.8644 0.005 No 55 0.0758 No No
Notes:
σ = sigma N = number of valid data points S = MannKendall statistic
%ND = percent of non-detected values p = probability
µg/L = micrograms per liter W = Shapiro Wilk test value
mg/L = milligrams per liter r2 = The measure of how well the trendline fits the data where r2=1 represents a perfect fit.
a = A regression test was performed on data that was determined to have normal or log-normal distribution
b = The Mann-Kendall test was performed on data that are not normally or lognormally distributed
Shapiro-Wilks Test for Normality
Least Squares
Regression Trend
Analysisa
Mann-Kendall
Trend
Analysisb
Significant
Trend
Previously
Identified
Increasing Trend?
Standard
DeviationWell Constituent N
% Non-
Detected
Values Mean
APPENDIX C
Geochemical Analysis for Indicator Parameters in MW-29
Source Assessment Report
for TDS in MW-29
May 7, 2013
Page 1 of 10
Appendix C-2 Descriptive Statistics for Indicator Parameters in MW-29
Data Set Parameter Mean N Minimum Maximum Std.Dev. Range Geometric Mean Skewness Q25 Median Q75
All Chloride (mg/L) 37 24 30 41 3 11 37 -0.92 35 37 39
Extremes Removed Fluoride (mg/L) 0.79 23 0.68 0.95 0.06 0.27 0.79 0.83 0.76 0.78 0.83
All Fluoride (mg/L) 0.81 24 0.68 1.10 0.09 0.42 0.80 1.86 0.76 0.79 0.84
Extremes Removed Sulfate (mg/L) 2787 23 2600 2980 89 380 2786 0.41 2720 2780 2840
All Sulfate (mg/L) 2727 24 1340 2980 308 1640 2702 -4.27 2715 2775 2840
Extremes Removed Uranium (ug/L) 11 23 8 13 0.96 5 11 -1.31 11 11 12
All Uranium (ug/L) 13 24 8 49 7.80 41 12 4.78 11 11 12
APPENDIX C
Geochemical Analysis for Indicator Parameters in MW-29
Source Assessment Report
for TDS in MW-29
May 7, 2013
Page 2 of 10
Appenidx C-3 Data Omitted from Analysis
Reason Well Sample Date Chemical Result Qualifier Detection Limit Units
Extreme outlier MW‐29 11/14/2012 Sulfate 1340 1000 mg/L
Extreme outlier MW‐29 12/14/2005 Uranium 49 0.3 ug/L
Extreme outlier MW‐29 6/24/2005 Fluoride 1.1 mg/L
APPENDIX C
Geochemical Analysis for Indicator Parameters in MW-29
Source Assessment Report
for TDS in MW-29
May 7, 2013
Page 3 of 10
Appendix C‐4 Box Plots for Indicator Parameters in MW‐29
Chloride in MW-29
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
Ch
l
o
r
i
d
e

(
m
g
/
L
)
Median
25%-75%
Non-Outlier Range
Outliers
Extremes
Sulfate in MW-29
2550
2600
2650
2700
2750
2800
2850
2900
2950
3000
Su
l
f
a
t
e

(
m
g
/
L
)
Median
25%-75%
Non-Outlier Range
Outliers
Extremes
Source Assessment Report
TDS in MW-29
May 7, 2013
$33(1',; & 
*HRFKHPLFDO $QDO\VLV IRU ,QGLFDWRU 3DUDPHWHUV LQ 0:
Page 4 of 10
Appendix C‐4 Box Plots for Indicator Parameters in MW‐29
Uranium in MW-29
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Ur
a
n
i
u
m

(
u
g
/
L
)
Median
25%-75%
Non-Outlier Range
Outliers
Extremes
Fluoride in MW-29
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
Fl
u
o
r
i
d
e

(
m
g
/
L
)
Median
25%-75%
Non-Outlier Range
Outliers
Extremes
Source Assessment Report
TDS in MW-29
May 7, 2013
$33(1',; & 
*HRFKHPLFDO $QDO\VLV IRU ,QGLFDWRU 3DUDPHWHUV LQ 0:
Page 5 of 10
Appendix C‐5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in MW‐29
Histogram
Chloride in MW-29
SW-W = 0.8996, p = 0.0211
1.46 1.48 1.50 1.52 1.54 1.56 1.58 1.60 1.62 1.64
Log Result
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
No

o
f

o
b
s
Histogram
Fluoride in MW-29
SW-W = 0.9669, p = 0.6146
-0.20 -0.18 -0.16 -0.14 -0.12 -0.10 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0.00
Log Result
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
No

o
f

o
b
s
Source Assessment Report
TDS in MW-29
May 7, 2013
$33(1',; & 
*HRFKHPLFDO $QDO\VLV IRU ,QGLFDWRU 3DUDPHWHUV LQ 0:
Page 6 of 10
Appendix C‐5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in MW‐29
Histogram
Sulfate in MW-29
SW-W = 0.9627, p = 0.5190
3.40 3.41 3.42 3.43 3.44 3.45 3.46 3.47 3.48 3.49
Log Result
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
No

o
f

o
b
s
Histogram
Uranium in MW-29
SW-W = 0.8644, p = 0.0050
0.88 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.10 1.12 1.14
Log Result
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
No

o
f

o
b
s
Source Assessment Report
TDS in MW-29
May 7, 2013
$33(1',; & 
*HRFKHPLFDO $QDO\VLV IRU ,QGLFDWRU 3DUDPHWHUV LQ 0:
Page 7 of 10
Appendix C‐6 Linear Regressions for Normally or Lognormally Distributed 
Indicator Parameters in MW‐29
Linear Regression for Fluoride in MW-29
r = -0.4891, p = 0.0179; r2 = 0.2392
2/17/2005 3/24/2006 4/28/2007 6/1/2008 7/6/2009 8/10/2010 9/14/2011 10/18/2012
Date Sampled
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
Fl
u
o
r
i
d
e

(
m
g
/
L
)
Linear Regression for Sulfate in MW-29
r = -0.1041, p = 0.6363; r2 = 0.0108
2/17/2005 3/24/2006 4/28/2007 6/1/2008 7/6/2009 8/10/2010 9/14/2011 10/18/2012
Date Sampled
2550
2600
2650
2700
2750
2800
2850
2900
2950
3000
Su
l
f
a
t
e

(
m
g
/
L
)
Source Assessment Report
TDS in MW-29
May 7, 2013
$33(1',; & 
*HRFKHPLFDO $QDO\VLV IRU ,QGLFDWRU 3DUDPHWHUV LQ 0:
Page 8 of 10
Appendix C‐7 Mann‐Kendal Analysis for Indicator Parameters Not Distributed Normally or Lognormally
Chloride
User Selected Options   
Date/Time of Computation   3/7/2013 23:29
From File   Cl.wst
Full Precision   OFF
Confidence Coefficient   0.95
Level of Significance   0.05
Chloride
General Statistics
Number of Values 24
Minimum 30
Maximum 41
Mean 36.79
Geometric Mean 36.68
Median 37
Standard Deviation 2.858
SEM 0.583
Mann‐Kendall Test
Test Value (S)‐67
Critical Value (0.05)‐1.645
Standard Deviation of S 39.9
Standardized Value of S ‐1.654
Approximate p‐value 0.049
Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing
trend at the specified level of significance.
Source Assessment Report
for TDS in MW-29
May 7, 2013
Page 9 of 10
Appendix C‐7 Mann‐Kendal Analysis for Indicator Parameters Not Distributed Normally or Lognormally
Uranium
User Selected Options   
Date/Time of Computation   3/7/2013 23:27
From File   U.wst
Full Precision   OFF
Confidence Coefficient   0.95
Level of Significance   0.05
Uranium
General Statistics
Number of Values 23
Minimum 8.1
Maximum 12.7
Mean 11.07
Geometric Mean 11.03
Median 11.1
Standard Deviation 0.955
SEM 0.199
Mann‐Kendall Test
Test Value (S)55
Critical Value (0.05)1.645
Standard Deviation of S 37.66
Standardized Value of S 1.434
Approximate p‐value 0.0758
Insufficient evidence to identify a significant
 trend at the specified level of significance.
Source Assessment Report
for TDS in MW-29
May 7, 2013
Page 10 of 10

APPENDIX D
Time Concentration Plot Comparison
Appendix D-1
Time Concentration Plot Comparison for TDS in MW-29
Linear Regression
TDS in MW-29
r = -0.0244, p = 0.9080; r2 = 0.0006
1/14/04 5/28/05 10/10/06 2/22/08 7/6/09 11/18/10 4/1/12 8/14/13
Date Sampled
4000
4100
4200
4300
4400
4500
4600
4700
To
t
a
l

D
i
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

S
o
l
i
d
s

(
m
g
/
L
)
TDS in MW-29
From the New Wells Background Report
r = -0.1573, p = 0.7098; r2 = 0.0248
2/17/05
5/28/05
9/5/05
12/14/05
3/24/06
7/2/06
10/10/06
1/18/07
4/28/07
8/6/07
11/14/07
2/22/08
Date
4310
4320
4330
4340
4350
4360
4370
4380
4390
4400
4410
TD
S

(
m
g
/
L
)
Source Assessment Report
TDS in MW‐29
May 7, 2013
Appendix D-2
Time Concentration Plots Comparison for Indicator Parameters in MW-29
Linear Regression for Chloride in MW-29
r = -0.2246, p = 0.2913; r2 = 0.0505
1/14/2004 5/28/2005 10/10/2006 2/22/2008 7/6/2009 11/18/2010 4/1/2012 8/14/2013
Date Sampled
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
Ch
l
o
r
i
d
e

(
m
g
/
L
)
Chloride in MW-29
From the New Wells Background Report
r = -0.4064, p = 0.2439; r2 = 0.1652
2/17/05
5/28/05
9/5/05
12/14/05
3/24/06
7/2/06
10/10/06
1/18/07
4/28/07
8/6/07
11/14/07
2/22/08
Date
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Ch
l
o
r
i
d
e

(
m
g
/
L
)
Source Assessment Report
TDS in MW‐29
May  7, 2013
Appendix D-2
Time Concentration Plots Comparison for Indicator Parameters in MW-29
Linear Regression for Fluoride in MW-29
r = -0.4891, p = 0.0179; r2 = 0.2392
2/17/2005 3/24/2006 4/28/2007 6/1/2008 7/6/2009 8/10/2010 9/14/2011 10/18/2012
Date Sampled
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
Fl
u
o
r
i
d
e

(
m
g
/
L
)
Fluoride in MW-29
From the New Wells Background Report
r = -0.2504, p = 0.4853; r2 = 0.0627
2/17/05 9/5/05 3/24/06 10/10/06 4/28/07 11/14/07
Date
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
1.05
1.10
1.15
Fl
u
o
r
i
d
e

(
m
g
/
L
)
Source Assessment Report
TDS in MW‐29
May  7, 2013
Appendix D-2
Time Concentration Plots Comparison for Indicator Parameters in MW-29
Linear Regression for Sulfate in MW-29
r = -0.1041, p = 0.6363; r2 = 0.0108
2/17/2005 3/24/2006 4/28/2007 6/1/2008 7/6/2009 8/10/2010 9/14/2011 10/18/2012
Date Sampled
2550
2600
2650
2700
2750
2800
2850
2900
2950
3000
Su
l
f
a
t
e

(
m
g
/
L
)
Sulfate in MW-29
From the New Wells Background Report
r = 0.2296, p = 0.5234; r2 = 0.0527
2/17/05
5/28/05
9/5/05
12/14/05
3/24/06
7/2/06
10/10/06
1/18/07
4/28/07
8/6/07
11/14/07
2/22/08
Date
2650
2700
2750
2800
2850
2900
2950
3000
Su
l
f
a
t
e

(
m
g
/
L
)
Source Assessment Report
TDS in MW‐29
May  7, 2013
Appendix D-2
Time Concentration Plots Comparison for Indicator Parameters in MW-29
Linear Regression for Uranium in MW-29
r = 0.4436, p = 0.0340; r2 = 0.1968
1/14/2004 5/28/2005 10/10/2006 2/22/2008 7/6/2009 11/18/2010 4/1/2012 8/14/2013
Date Sampled
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Ur
a
n
i
u
m

(
u
g
/
L
)
Uranium in MW-29
From the New Wells Background Report
r = 0.2046, p = 0.5974; r2 = 0.0419
5/28/05
9/5/05
12/14/05
3/24/06
7/2/06
10/10/06
1/18/07
4/28/07
8/6/07
11/14/07
2/22/08
Date
9.4
9.6
9.8
10.0
10.2
10.4
10.6
10.8
11.0
11.2
11.4
11.6
11.8
12.0
12.2
12.4
Ur
a
n
i
u
m

(
u
g
/
L
)
Source Assessment Report
TDS in MW‐29
May  7, 2013

APPENDIX E
Flowsheet (Groundwater Data Preparation and Statistical Process Flow for
Calculating Groundwater Protection Standards, White Mesa Mill Site
(INTERA, 2007a))
Negative Value?
Zero Value?
Truncated Value?
Duplicate Value?
Units Consistant?
Non-detects Exceeding Criteria Specified by URS Memo*
Analysis Internally Consistent?(TDS and Charge Balance Check)
YesNo
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Radionuclide?
Yes
Remove from DatasetDetection Limit and U-Flag Data Qualifier NoNo
Review for Units
Remove from Dataset
If chloride, sulfate, or TDS, Remove from Dataset
Correct Value Confirmed?
Remove from
Dataset
Remove from Dataset
Determine Percentage Non-Detects in Remaining Data
Plot Data Sets as Box Plots to Identify Extreme Values As Specified in Background Report. Extreme Value?
No Remove from
Dataset
Yes
At Least 8 Data Points Remaining?
Defer Analysis Until Eight
Data Points Avalible
0-15 Percent Non-Detects >15-50 Percent Non-Detects >90 Percent Non-Detects
No
Yes
No
Substitute One Half of Detection Limit
Log Transform Data
Use Probability Plots to
Determine if Cohen’s or Aitchison’s Method
Calculate Descriptive Statistics
(Redo Tables In Background Report)
Screen for Trends Using Least Squares Regression.
Calculate GWCL (Mean
+2Sigma)
Calculate Descriptive Statistics
(Redo Tables In Background Report)
Yes
No
Calculate GWCL (Mean +2Sigma)
Calculate GWCL Using Greater of Fraction Approach under UAC R317-6-4-4.5(B)(2) or 4.6(B)(2) or Poisson Prediction Limit
Yes
No
>50-90 Percent Non-Detects
Calculate Upper Prediction Limit (Highest Historical Value)
Calculate GWCL Using Greater of Fraction Approach under UAC R317-6-4-4.5(B)(2) or 4.6(B)(2) or the Highest Historic Value
Estimate Mean and Standard
Deviation
Screen for Trends Using Mann-Kendall Screen for Trends Using Mann-Kendall
Yes
Use Non-Parametric StatisticsNo
Screen for Trends Using Least Squares Regression
Groundwater Data Preparation and Statistical Process Flow for
Calculating Groundwater Protection Standards, White Mesa Mill Site, San Juan County, Utah
Upward Trend?Upward Trend?
No No
Yes
Consider Modified Approch to GWCL
Upward Trend?Upward Trend?
No No
Yes
Consider Modified Approch to GWCL
Log Transform Data
Log-Normal or Normal?Shapiro WilkProbability PlotsHistograms
Log-Normal or Normal?Shapiro WilkProbability PlotsHistograms
*A non-detect considered “insensitive” will be the maximum reporting limit in a dataset and will exceed other non-detects by, for example, an order of magnitude (e.g., <10 versus <1.0 µg/L). In some cases, insensitive non-detects may also exceed detectable values in a
dataset (e.g., <10 versus 3.5 µg/L).
Groundwater Data Preparation and Statistical Process Flow for Calculating Ground Water Compliance Limits,
White Mesa Mill Site, SanJuan County, Utah.
Database of Wells and Analytes Listed in the Statement of Basis

APPENDIX F
Input and Output Files (Electronic Only)