DRC-2013-003011 - 0901a068803b26d1

ENERGYFUELS
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
225 Union Blvd. Suite 600
Lakewood, CO, US, 80228
303 974 2140
www.energyfuels.com
M DRC-2013-003011 M
195 North 1950 West
P.O. Box 144850
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850
Rusty Lundberg,
Director, Division of Radiation Control
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
August 27,2013
VIA PDF AND FEDEX
Re: Re: DUSA 1st Quarter 2013 Groundwater Monitoring Repoit - Notice of Violation, Docket
No. UGW13-05
Dear Mr. Lundberg:
This letter is in response to the foregoing Notice of Violation (the "Notice") dated July 23, 2013, which
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. ("EFRI") received on July 29, 2013. The Notice lists one violation
(the "Violation") of the White Mesa Mill's (the "Mill's") Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit No.
UGW370004 (the "Permit"), based on a review of the Mill's Groundwater Monitoring Report for the 1st
Quarter of 2013.
Pursuant to the Notice, this letter describes:
a) the root cause of the noncompliance;
b) corrective steps taken or to be taken to prevent recurrence of the noncompliance;
c) date when compliance was/ or will be achieved; and
d) a plan and time schedule for the assessment of THF out-of-compliance status at monitoring well
MW-01 in compliance with the Permit Part I.G.4.C.
EFRI responds as follows:
1. Based on the Findings of Fact noted in the July 23,2013 DRC letter, EFRI is in violation of Part
I.G.4(c) of the Permit for failing to provide a plan and schedule for assessment of the sources,
extent and potential dispersion of the monitoring well MW-01 THF contamination to the Director.
a) Root Cause of the Noncompliance
EFRI submitted a Source Assessment Report ("SAR") in October 2012 which requested, among other
things, the removal of the Groundwater Compliance Limits ("GWCLs") from the far-upgradient wells
MW-01, MW-18, and MW-19. EFRI noted that these wells are far-upgradient and are not likely to be
impacted by Mill activities. DRC has noted that kriged water level maps indicate that the elevations at
monitoring wells MW-01, MW-18, and MW-19 are higher than the water elevations in the Burro Canyon
Aquifer beneath all of the Mill Tailings Cells. Additionally, MW-01, MW-18, and MW-19 are located
north and northeast of the Mill Tailings Cells while local groundwater flow is to the south-southwest. By
Letter to Mr. Rusty Lundberg
August 27, 2013
Page 2
letter dated April 25, 2013, DRC recommended that the GWCLs be removed from the far-upgradient
wells. The DRC letter indicated that all accepted changes would be incorporated into the next revision of
the Permit.
EFRI mistakenly interpreted the April 25, 2013 letter to mean that the 30 day requirement for a plan and
time schedule for assessment of sources and extent and potential dispersion of the contamination, would
not be required in MW-01, in light of the recommendation for removal of the GWCLs from the far-
upgradient wells. EFRI operated under the incorrect assumption that the recommendation for removal
effectively removed the requirement immediately upon receipt of the April 25, 2013 letter, rather than at
the as yet undetermined date for an approved Permit renewal.
b) Steps That Have Been Taken to Correct the Violation
A Plan and Time Schedule for THF in MW-01 is attached.
c) Date When Compliance Was or Will be Regained
Compliance has been regained with the submission of the Plan and Time Schedule, which is attached.
d) Steps Taken to Prevent Reoccurrence of the Noncompliance
EFRI now understands that the provisions of Part I.G.4.(c) apply to all situations when the concentration
of a constituent in two consecutive samples exceed the GWCL until such time as the Permit is updated to
reflect the changes in the October 2012 SAR and the recommendations in the April 25, 2013 DRC letter.
Additionally, DRC and EFRI are currently developing an interim revision to the Permit including, among
other changes, the removal of the GWCLs for the upgradient wells.
If you have any questions or require any further information, please contact the undersigned.
Yours truly,
Jo Ann Tischler
Manager, Compliance and Licensing
cc: David Frydenlund
Harold Roberts
Dan Hillsten
David Turk
WHITE MESA MILL
State of Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit UGW370004
Plan and Time Schedule
Under Part LG.4 (d)
For
Violations of Part LG.2 for Constituents in the First Quarter of
2013
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
225 Union Boulevard, Suite 600
Lakewood, CO 80228
August 27, 2013
1
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 LG.2 of the Permit for the 1st, quarter of 2013. Part LG.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 ground water compliance
limit ("GWCL") in Table 2 of the Permit.
The Permit was originally issued in March, 2005, at which time GWCLs were set on an interim
basis, based on fractions of State Ground Water Quality Standards or the equivalent, without
reference to natural background at the Mill site. The Permit also required that EFRI prepare a
background groundwater quality report to evaluate all historic data for the purposes of
establishing background groundwater quality at the site and developing GWCLs under the
Permit.
As required by then Part I.H.3 of the Permit, EFRI submitted the following to the Director of the
State of Utah Division of Radiation Control (the "Director"):
• A Revised Background Groundwater Quality Report: Existing Wells For Denison Mines
(USA) Corp.'s Mill Site, San Juan County, Utah, October 2007, prepared by LNTERA,
Inc. (the "Existing Wells Background Report");
• A Revised Addendum: — Evaluation of Available Pre-Operational and Regional
Background Data, Background Groundwater Quality Report: Existing Wells For
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.'s Mill Site, San Juan County, Utah, November 16, 2007,
prepared by INTERA, Inc. (the "Regional Background Report"); and
• A Revised Addendum: — Background Groundwater Quality Report: New Wells For
Denison Mines (USA) Corp. 's Mill Site, San Juan County, Utah, April 30, 2008, prepared
by INTERA, Inc. (the "New Wells Background Report, and together with the Existing
Wells Background Report and the Regional Background Report, the "Background
Reports").
Based on a review of the Background Reports and other information and analyses the Director
re-opened the Permit and modified the GWCLs to be equal to the mean concentration of
background for each constituent on an intrawell basis plus two standard deviations or the
equivalent. The modified GWCLs became effective on January 20, 2010.
The Director issued a Notice of Violation and Compliance Order, Docket No. UGW13-05 (the
"Notice"), dated July 23, 2013, based on the State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality
("UDEQ"), Division of Radiation Control ("DRC") findings from the review of the Mill's 1st
quarter 2013 Groundwater Monitoring Report. The Notice cited one violation of the Permit
2
under Part I.G.4 of the Permit for failing to provide a plan and time schedule for assessment of
the source(s), extent, and potential dispersion of the monitoring well MW-01 tetrahydrofuran
("THF") contamination to the Director.
Section E.2 (d) of the Notice orders EFRI to prepare and submit within 30 calendar days of
receipt of the Notice, a written plan and time schedule for assessment of THF out-of-compliance
status at monitoring well MW-01 in compliance with the Permit Part I.G.4.C.
This Plan covers assessment of THF out-of-compliance status at monitoring well MW-01 as
required by the Notice.
2. CONSTITUENTS AND WELLS SUBJECT TO THIS PLAN
The following constituent has been identified in one well in the Notice and the 1st Quarter 2013
Exceedance Notice as being in out-of-compliance status under Part I.G.2 of the Permit:
Table 1
Constituent and Well Subject to this Plan
Constituent Monitoring Event
41* Quarter 2012
1st Quarter 2013
POC Well GWCL Result
THF MW-01 11.5 ng/L 21.8 ng/L
12.6 Lig/L
It should be noted that the Notice, and the 1st Quarter 2013 Exceedance Notice 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 this Plan, for the reasons stated in the 1st
Quarter 2013 Exceedance Notice. That is, Chloroform and Dichloromethane are associated with
the Chloroform Plume, and the August 23, 1999 DRC Notice of Violation and Groundwater
Corrective Action Order. Nitrate + Nitrite and Chloride are associated with the Nitrate/Chloride
plume, and are currently covered by the December 12, 2012 Stipulation and Consent Order.
With respect to pH, EFRI and DRC entered into a Stipulated Consent Agreement ("SCA") dated
July 12, 2012. The SCA required the completion of the pH Report and the Pyrite Investigation
and associated report. The pH Report and Pyrite Investigation Report were submitted November
9, 2012 and December 7, 2012 respectively. By letter dated April 25, 2013, DRC accepted the
conclusions that the out-of-compliance results for pH are due to background effects within the
aquifer matrix and are not caused by Mill activities.
3. CATEGORIES FOR ANALYSIS
Previously EFRI has categorized wells and constituents in several categories as follows:
• Constituents Potentially Impacted by Decreasing pH Trends Across the Site
• Newly Installed Wells with Interim GWCLs
• Constituents in Wells with Previously Identified Rising Trends
3
• Pumping Wells
• Other Constituents
THF in MW-01 falls within the last category: other constituents. Assessment of THF in MW-01
will follow the process noted below.
3.1. Other Constituents
The location of MW-01, local groundwater flow directions, elevation of MW-01 and sources of
THF at the Mill were used to determine the assessment process for MW-01.
MW-01 is a far-upgradient well and cannot have been impacted by Mill activities. Kriged water
level maps indicate that the elevation at monitoring well MW-01 is higher than the water
elevations in the Burro Canyon Aquifer beneath all of the Mill Tailings Cells. Additionally,
MW-01 is located north of the Mill Tailings Cells while local groundwater flow is to the south-
southwest.
EFRI has never purchased, stored or used THF as a reagent, solvent or additive to the Mill's
processes. The only known source of THF at the Mill is as an additive that can be found in
kerosene, which is used in the Mill's solvent extraction circuit. THF is therefore expected to be
a constituent in the Mill's tailings system and tailings wastewater analyses have confirmed that it
is present in the tailings system. However, its presence in tailings does not explain the detection
of THF in wells as far up-gradient as MW-01, which cannot be affected by the tailings system.
4. PLAN
4.1. General
i
This Plan is a plan and time schedule for assessment of the sources, extent and potential
dispersion of the contamination, and an evaluation of potential remedial action to restore and
maintain groundwater quality to ensure that Permit limits will not be exceeded at the compliance
monitoring point and that, to the extent applicable, discharge minimization technology and best
available technology will be reestablished.
Given the recent analyses in the Background Reports and other recent information relating to the
Chloroform and Nitrate/Chloride investigations at the site, EFRI believes there is no plausible
scenario that would account for THF in MW-01 resulting from the Mill operations, because it is
approximately 2,200 feet (over 0.4 miles) upgradient of Mill operations. EFRI maintains that,
even given the presence of THF in tailings solutions, the most plausible explanation for the THF
detection in MW-01 is that it results from something intrinsic to the well or the well sampling.
As identified in our letters of October 17, 2003 and December 18, 2003, EFRI maintains that one
source for THF detected in MW-01 is more likely to be the solvents and adhesives used in well
construction.
Therefore, the first step in the analysis will be to perform an investigation of this potential source
for the exceedance. EFRI will provide documentation from published studies and papers that
4
indicate that THF is persistent (over many years) in monitoring wells due to solvents and
adhesives used for well construction. The results of this literature search will be provided in a
report to DRC in accordance with the schedule presented in Section 5 below. The Report will
detail the results of the literature search and the conclusions to be drawn from such information.
The second step in the analysis will be to continue to monitor THF in MW-01 on an accelerated
schedule (from semi-annually to quarterly).
5. TIME SCHEDULE
The Report will be submitted to the Director within 90 days after approval of this Plan. THF
concentrations will be tracked for 4 quarters and a discussion of the results will be included in
the 2nd quarter 2014 quarterly groundwater repoit due to DRC on or before September 1, 2014.
Any further studies identified by the Director as being required in order to fulfill the
requirements of Part I.G.4(c) of the Permit or the Notice, will be prepared and submitted by
EFRI in accordance with a schedule to be approved by the Director.
6. CONCLUSION
Water level and elevation data indicate that MW-01 is far-upgradient of the Mill's Tailings Cells
and cannot be impacted by Mill activities. THF concentrations which exceed the GWCL are
likely the result of well construction practices in older monitoring wells that used adhesives and
glues to join the casings.
Several US EPA, USGS and consultant studies have produced data which indicate that THF in
older wells is the result of construction practices. THF has never been used as a reagent, solvent
or additive to the Mill's processes but is found as an additive in kerosene, which is used in the
Mill's solvent extraction circuit. THF is therefore expected to be a constituent in the Mill's
tailings system and tailings wastewater analyses have confirmed that it is present in the tailings
system. However, its presence in tailings does not explain the detection of THF in wells as far
up-gradient as MW-01. As previously stated MW-01 is far upgradient and cannot have been
impacted by Mill activities.
5