DRC-2013-003162 - 0901a068803be971

ENERGYFUELS
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
225 Union Blvd. Suite 600
Lakewood, CO, US, 80228
"DRC~201 3~0031 62" www.energyfuels.com
September 20,2013
Sent VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
/
Mr. Rusty Lundberg ttt A
Division of Radiation Control . ^eO&^e '\
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
195 North 1950 West ^0,oi . ';
P.O. Box 144850 \ J^C# /
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4820
Re: Transmittal of Plan and Time Schedule under Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit
UGW370004 Part I.G.4 (d) White Mesa Mill (the "Mill")
Dear Mr. Lundberg:
This letter transmits Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.'s ("EFRI's") Plan and Time Schedule
pursuant to State of Utah Groundwater Discharge Permit UGW370004 (the "Permit") Part I.G.4(d) for
Violations of Part I.G.2 of the Permit. Part I.G.2 of the Permit provides that out-of-compliance
("OOC") status exists when the concentration of a pollutant in two consecutive samples from a
compliance monitoring point exceeds a groundwater compliance limit ("GWCL").
On August 23, 2013, EFRI submitted a letter to the Director under Part I.G.I (a) of the Permit
providing notice that the concentrations of specific constituents in groundwater monitoring wells at the
Mill exceeded their respective GWCL's for the 2nd quarter of 2013 and indicating which of those
constituents had two consecutive exceedances during that quarter. This Plan and Time Schedule
addresses violations of Part I.G.2 of the Permit for the 2nd quarter of 2013.
Please contact me if you have any questions or require any further information.
Yours very truly,
ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES (USA) INC.
Jo Ann Tischler
Director, Compliance and Licensing
cc: David C. Frydenlund
Harold R. Roberts
David E. Turk
Katherine A. Weinel
WHITE MESA MILL
State of Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit UGW370004
Plan and Time Schedule
Under Part LG.4 (d)
For
Violation of Part I.G.2 for a Constituent in the Second Quarter of 2013
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
225 Union Boulevard, Suite 600
Lakewood, CO 80228
September 20, 2013
1. INTRODUCTION
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. ("EFRI") operates the White Mesa Uranium Mill (the
"Mill"), located near Blanding Utah, under State of Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit
UGW370004 (the "Permit").
This is the plan and time schedule (the "Plan") required under Part I.G.4(c) of the Permit relating
to violations of Part I.G.2 of the Permit for the 2nd quarter of 2013. Part I.G.2 of the Permit
provides that out-of-compliance ("OOC") status exists when the concentration of a pollutant in
two consecutive samples from a compliance monitoring point exceeds a groundwater compliance
limit ("GWCL") 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
Utah Division of Radiation Control ("DRC") (the Director was formerly known as the Executive
Secretary of the Utah Radiation Control Board and the Co-Executive Secretary of the State of
Utah Water Quality Board):
• A Revised Background Groundwater Quality Report: Existing Wells For Denison Mines
(USA) Corp.'s Mill Site, San Juan County, Utah, October 2007, prepared by INTER A,
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 plus two
standard deviations or the equivalent. The modified GWCLs became effective on January 20,
2010. EFRI has conducted accelerated monitoring and exceedance tracking for those
constituents that have exceeded the GWCLs since January 20, 2010.
2
Part I.G.I c) of the GWDP states, with respect to exceedances of GWCLs, "that the Permittee
shall prepare and submit within 30 calendar days to the Executive Secretary a plan and a time
schedule for assessment of the sources, extent and potential dispersion of the contamination, and
an evaluation of potential remedial action to restore and maintain groundwater quality to insure
that Permit limits will not be exceeded at the compliance monitoring point and that DMT or BAT
will be reestablished." Pursuant to this requirement, EFRI has submitted five Plans and Time
Schedules and three associated Source Assessment Reports ("SARs") to address previous dual
exceedances as shown in the Table 1 below (as required in light of other actions currently being
undertaken by EFRI and as determined by DRC Staff and stated in teleconferences with EFRI on
April 27 and May 2, 2011).
Table 1
Plans and Time Schedules and SARs Previously Submitted
Quarter Plan and Time
Schedule Date
SAR date
Ql 2010, Q2 2010,
Q3 2010, Q4 2010,
Ql 2011
June 13, 2011 October 10, 2012
Q2 2011 September 7, 2011 October 10, 2012
Q3 2012 December 13, 2012 May 7, 2013
Q4 2012 March 15, 2013 August 30, 2013
Ql 2013 August 27, 2013 Due December 17,
2013
On August 23, 2013 EFRI submitted a notice (the "2nd Quarter 2013 Exceedance Notice") to the
Executive Secretary under Part LG.l(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
2nd quarter of 2013, and indicating which of those constituents had two consecutive exceedances
as of that quarter.
This Plan covers the constituent that was identified as being in violation of Part I.G.2 of the
Permit, in the 2nd Quarter 2013 Exceedance Notice, dated August 23, 2013.
2. CONSTITUENT AND WELL SUBJECT TO THIS PLAN
The following Q2 2013 Consecutive Exceedance has been identified as being in out-of-
compliance status under Part I.G.2 of the Permit in the 2nd Quarter 2013 Exceedance Notice:
Table 2
Constituent and Well Subject to this Plan
Constituent Monitoring Event POC Well GWCL Result
Gross Alpha
minus Rn
andU
1st Qtr 2013 (2/19/2013)
2nd Qtr, 2013(5/13/2013)
MW-32 3.33 5.02 pCi/L
3.72 pCi/L
3
It should be noted that the August 23, 1999 Notice of Violation and the Exceedance Notices to
date identify a number of wells with consecutive exceedances of nitrate + nitrite and/or chloride,
chloroform and dichloromethane, and pH (less than the respective GWCLs for pH in a number of
wells). However, none of those constituents are included in the SARs for the reasons stated in
the Notice of Violation. That is, chloroform and dichloromethane are associated with the
existing chloroform plume at the Mill, as contemplated in the DRC Notice of Violation and
Groundwater Corrective Action Order. Nitrate + nitrite and chloride are associated with the
nitrate/chloride plume, addressed by the Corrective Action Plan, dated May 2012. With respect
to pH, a separate study and Report were prepared pursuant to the July 12, 2012 Stipulated
Consent Agreement.
3. CATEGORIES FOR ANALYSIS
Previously EFRI has categorized wells and constituents in several categories as follows:
• Constituents Potentially Impacted by Decreasing pH Trends Across the Site
• Newly Installed Wells with Interim GWCLs
• Constituents in Wells with Previously Identified Rising Trends
• Pumping Wells
• Other Constituents
Gross alpha minus Rn and U ("gross alpha") does not fall within any of the first four categories
for analysis previously used for assessment. Therefore, it falls within the fifth category, "other
constituents".
3.1. Other Constituents
Analysis of indicator parameters in MW-32 in the pH report submitted to DRC on November 9,
2012, shows that chloride, fluoride, sulfate, and uranium are not exhibiting significantly
increasing trends, indicating that there is no evidence of potential tailings cell leakage.
4. PLAN
4.1. General
This Plan is a plan and time schedule for assessment of the source, extent and potential
dispersion of the contamination, and an evaluation of potential remedial action to restore and
maintain groundwater quality to assure that Permit limits will not be exceeded at the compliance
monitoring point and that, to the extent applicable, discharge minimization technology and best
available technology will be reestablished.
Given the analyses in the Background Reports and the recent analyses in the pH report which
show that indicator parameters in MW-32 are not exhibiting significantly increasing trends,
EFRI believes that the Q2 2013 Consecutive Exceedance is likely due to background influences.
The initial GWCL for gross alpha in MW-32 was set using the minimum 8 data points and does
4
not accurately reflect the true natural variation that would be evident with a larger data set.
There are now 43 data points available, which will undoubtedly affect the outcome of the
analysis. Therefore, EFRI proposes to continue accelerated monitoring for gross alpha in MW-32
while EFRI prepares, and the Director evaluates, a SAR which will include a geochemical
analysis of gross alpha and indicator parameters in MW-32, and if appropriate, a proposed
revised GWCL for gross alpha using all data available at the time of the analysis.
4.2. Approach for Analysis
The first step in the analysis will be to perform an assessment of the potential sources for gross
alpha in MW-32 to determine whether the exceedance is due to background influences or Mill
activities. This assessment will include an analysis of gross alpha and indicator parameters
chloride, fluoride, sulfate, and uranium in MW-32 to determine if the behavior of the water in
MW-32 has changed since the time of the New Wells Background Report. If the exceedance is
determined to be caused by background influences, then it is not necessary to perform any
further evaluations on the extent and potential dispersion of the contamination or to perform an
evaluation of potential remedial actions. Monitoring will continue, and revised GWCLs will be
proposed to reflect changes in background conditions at the site.
The revised GWCL process will include a statistical analysis of gross alpha data from MW-32
using the methods described in the Existing Wells Background Report (INTERA, 2007a) and the
State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality approved Flowsheet ("the Flowsheet").
As mentioned in the SAR and the pH report, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
("EPA") has recognized the need to update compliance limits periodically to reflect changes to
background conditions.
In 2009 guidance, EPA states:
"We recommend that other reviews of background also take place periodically.
These include the following situations:
• When periodically updating background, say every 1-2 years
• When performing a 5-10 year permit review
During these reviews, all observations designated as background should be evaluated
to ensure that they still adequately reflect current natural or baseline groundwater
conditions. In particular, the background samples should be investigated for
apparent trends or outliers. Statistical outliers may need to be removed, especially if
an error or discrepancy can be identified, so that subsequent compliance tests can be
improved. If trends are indicated, a change in the statistical method or approach may
be warranted."
and
5
"Site-wide changes in the underlying aquifer should be identifiable as similar trends
in both upgradient and compliance wells. In this case, it might be possible to remove
a common trend from both the background and compliance point wells and to
perform interwell testing on the trend residuals."
(EPA 530/R-09-007, March 2009, Statistical Analysis Of Groundwater Monitoring Data At
RCRA Facilities Unified Guidance, Environmental Protection Agency, Office Of Resource
Conservation And Recovery.)
4.3. Experts Reports to be Prepared
The results of the statistical analysis and, if appropriate, recalculation of the GWCL will be
compiled as a SAR that will be submitted to DRC within 90 days of the approval of this plan.
The SAR will detail the results of all analyses to be performed and the conclusions to be drawn
from such analyses, including proposed revision to the existing GWCL. Specifically, the SAR
will follow the format of the previously submitted SAR (October 10, 2012) and will include
discussions, results and conclusions of the analyses and appendices containing the following:
A geochemical analysis of gross alpha in MW-32
Comparison of calculated and measured TDS for samples with complete major ions
Charge balance calculations
Descriptive statistics
Box plots to identify extreme outliers
Histograms and Shapiro Wilk test for normality
Regression or Mann Kendall trend analysis
Proposed Revised GWCL for gross alpha in MW-32
A geochemical analysis of Indicator Parameters in MW-32
Descriptive Statistics
Box plots to identify extreme outliers
Histograms and Shapiro Wilk test for normality
Regression and/or Mann Kendall trend analysis
5. TIME SCHEDULE
The SAR will be submitted to the Director within 90 days after approval of this Plan. The SAR
contemplated by this submission, may be combined with any subsequent SARs resulting from
other Plans and Schedules for other out of compliance constituents, as necessary.
6. CONCLUSION
Given the varied background groundwater quality at the site it cannot be assumed that
consecutive exceedances of a constituent in a monitoring well means that contamination has
been introduced to groundwater in that well.
6
With respect to MW-32, preliminary analysis suggests that the Q2 2013 Consecutive Exceedance
of gross alpha is likely due to an unrepresentative GWCL which was established using the
minimum of 8 required data points at the time of the Background Report. These exceedances
represent natural variation in background and are not caused by potential tailings cell leakage,
based on the lack of significantly increasing trends in indicator constituents in MW-32.
Background at the Mill site was recently thoroughly studied in the Background Reports, the SAR
and the pH report and in the University of Utah Study. The Background Reports, the SAR, the
pH report and the University of Utah Study concluded that groundwater at the site has not been
impacted by Mill operations. All of these studies also acknowledged that there are natural
influences at play at the site that have given rise to increasing water levels and general variability
of background groundwater chemistry at the site.
EFRI maintains that it is not practicable to redo the University of Utah Study and comprehensive
Background Reports each time a monitoring well shows consecutive exceedances, particularly
where the exceedances are consistent with those recent analyses. The focus should therefore be
on identifying any changes in the circumstances identified in those studies. Therefore EFRI will
conduct a geochemical analysis of gross alpha and indicator parameters to confirm that the out-
of-compliance status for gross alpha is due to variation in background which may not have been
accounted for at the time of the Background Report because of limited available data. The
geochemical analysis, and revision of the GWCL if necessary, will be consistent with the
Flowsheet.
7