DRC-2015-002524 - 0901a06880530218

ENERGYFUELS
DRC-2015-002524
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
225 Union Blvd. Suite 600
Lakewood, CO, US, 80228
303 974 2140
www.cncriivfuels.com
May 19, 2015
Sent VIA E-MAIL AND EXPRESS DELIVERY
Mr. Rusty Lundberg
Division of Radiation Control
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
195 North 1950 West
P.O. Box 144850
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4820
Re: Transmittal of Plan and Time Schedule under Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit
UGW370004 Part LG.4 (c) 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(c) for
MW-31 for the first quarter of 2015. 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"). While consecutive
exceedance have been noted in MW-31 and other wells at the site, a plan and time schedule have not
been required or appropriate in light of other actions currently being undertaken by EFRI or in light of
other reports submitted by EFRI.
This Plan is being voluntarily submitted to DRC by EFRI to address exceedances in MW-31. These
exceedances were addressed in previous Source Assessment Reports ("SARs"). The constituents
discussed herein have exceeded the recalculated GWCLs specified in previous SARS due to
statistically significant trends noted in these previous studies.
Please contact me if you have any questions or require any further information.
Yours very truly,
ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES (USA) INC.
Kathy Weinel
Quality Assurance Manager cc: Harold R. Roberts
David E. Turk
Scott Bakken
WHITE MESA MILL
State of Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit UGW370004
Plan and Time Schedule
Under Part I.G.4 (c)
For
Exceedances in MW-31 in the First Quarter of 2015
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
225 Union Boulevard, Suite 600
Lakewood, CO 80228
May 19, 2015
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 MW-31 for the first quarter of 2015. Part I.G.2 of
the Permit provides that out-of-compliance status exists when the concentration of a pollutant in
two consecutive samples from a compliance monitoring point exceeds a groundwater compliance
limit ("GWCL") in Table 2 of the Permit. While consecutive exceedance have been noted in
MW-31 and other wells at the site, a plan and time schedule and Source Assessment Report
("SAR") have not been required or appropriate in light of other actions currently being
undertaken by EFRI or in light of other reports submitted by EFRI, and as determined by
Division of Radiation Control ("DRC") Staff. Specifically, consecutive exceedances which
occurred in previous reporting periods are discussed in the SARs submitted to DRC October 10,
2012, May 8, 2013, August 30, 2013, December 17, 2013, January 13, 2014, March 19, 2014,
and the Plan and Time Schedule submitted December 4, 2014. Additionally, pH was addressed
in reports dated November 9, 2012 and December 7, 2012. A description of the other actions
and reports which have affected the requirement to submit a plan and time schedule are as
follows:
1. Nitrate + nitrite and chloride in monitoring wells at the site have been the subject of
ongoing investigations at the Mill. Based on the results of the previous investigations,
EFRI and the Director acknowledge that it has not been possible to date to determine the
source(s), cause(s), attribution, magnitudes of contribution, and proportion(s) of the local
nitrate + nitrite and chloride in groundwater. EFRI submitted a Corrective Action Plan
("CAP") in February 2012 for nitrate + nitrite and chloride in groundwater. The CAP
was approved on December 12, 2012 and the activities associated with the CAP are on-
going. Based on information provided by DRC in teleconferences on April 27, and May
2, 2011, due to the ongoing activities and actions, the 30-day plan and schedule for
assessment is not required for nitrate + nitrite and chloride exceedances at this time.
2. As discussed in previous quarterly groundwater sampling reports, the background levels
and GWCLs for pH were established based on eight or more quarters of laboratory data,
which are historically higher than field data. EFRFs letter to the Director dated January
31, 2011 proposed the recalculation of the GWCLs for field pH. Following the statistical
evaluation of pH data by EFRI's geochemical consultant, ENTERA, Inc., EFRI compared
the Mill's groundwater pH data from Q2 2011 and noted that all of the June 2011
groundwater results, and many of the other results from Q2 2011, were already outside
the revised GWCLs that were to be proposed in the June 30, 2011 letter. Pursuant to
teleconferences with DRC on December 5, and December 19, 2011, EFRI submitted a
Work Plan and Schedule on January 20, 2012 and a revised plan based on DRC
comments on April 13, 2012. Based on the approved Work Plan and Time Schedule,
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. DRC
also approved the recalculation of the GWCLs. As a result, the 30-day plan and schedule
for assessment is not required for field pH exceedances.
3. A Plan and Time Schedule will not be prepared for monitoring wells with two successive
exceedances in Q3 2014 if successive exceedances were reported in a previous quarter
and were included in the Source Assessment Reports ("SARs"), submitted October 10,
2012, May 8, 2013, August 30, 2013, December 17, 2013, January 13, 2014, and March
19, 2014. A Plan and Time Schedule will not be submitted for those constituents covered
by the previously mentioned SARs, because the conclusions and actions delineated in
those reports were either accepted by DRC as documented in DRC correspondence dated
April 25, 2013, July 23, 2013, September 17, 2013 January 7, 2014, March 10, 2014, and
June 5, 2014 respectively.
Chloroform and methylene chloride are the subject of the ongoing chloroform pumping program
and are covered by State of Utah Notice of Violation ("NOV") and Groundwater Corrective
Action Order ("CAO") State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality ("UDEQ") Docket
No. UGW-20-01. As a result, the 30-day plan and schedule for assessment of chloroform and
methylene chloride exceedances is not required.
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 DNfTERA,
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 LNTERA, 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 DNTERA, 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.
Part I.G.4 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 nine Plans and Time
Schedules and eight associated SARs to address previous dual exceedances (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).
This Plan and the associated SAR are being voluntarily submitted to DRC by EFRI to address
exceedances in MW-31. These exceedances were addressed in previous SARs. The constituents
discussed herein have exceeded the recalculated GWCLs specified in previous SARS due to
statistically significant trends noted in these previous studies.
2. CONSTITUENTS AND WELLS SUBJECT TO THIS PLAN
The following constituents are covered by this Plan:
Table 1
Constituent and Well Subject to this Plan
Constituent POC Well Current GWCL
(ug/L)
Previously Recalculated
GWCL (ug/L)
Ql 2015
Result (ug/L)
Selenium MW-31 71 79 79.2
Sulfate MW-31 532 552 623
Total
Dissolved
Solids
("TDS")
MW-31 1320 1410.57 1520
Field pH MW-31 6.5-8.5 6.57 -8.5 6.42
It should be noted that the 1st Quarter 2015 Exceedance Notice identifies a number of wells,
with consecutive exceedances of other constituents. None of those constituents are included in
this Plan, for the reasons stated in Section 1 above and in the Ql 2105 Exceedance Notice. This
Plan and the associated SAR are being voluntarily submitted to DRC by EFRI to address
exceedances in MW-31, which were addressed in previous SARs, but have exceeded the
recalculated GWCLs specified in those previous SARs due to statistically significant trends
noted in previous studies.
Nitrate + Nitrite and Chloride concentrations in MW-31 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 and site-wide decrease in pH are due to
background effects within the aquifer matrix and are not caused by Mill activities. The site-wide
decrease in pH due to background effects within the aquifer matrix has continued, and as a result,
EFRI has included pH in MW-31 in this Plan.
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
Selenium in MW-31 falls within the first category: Constituents Potentially Impacted by
Decreasing pH Trends Across the Site. Sulfate, TDS and field pH fall within the last category:
Other Constituents. Assessment of these constituents in MW-31 will follow the process noted
below.
3.1. Constituents Potentially Impacted bv Decreasing pH Trends Across the Site
EFRI has observed a decreasing trend in pH in a number of monitoring wells across the Mill site.
See the discussions in the SAR dated October 10, 2012, the pH Report dated November 9, 2012
and the Pyrite Investigation Report dated December 7, 2012. The pH Report specifically noted
that wells MW-03, MW-03A, MW-11, MW-12, MW-14, MW-15, MW-17, MW-18, MW-22,
MW-24, MW-25, MW-30, MW-32, and MW-37 showed significantly decreasing trends in pH.
Since the publication of the pH Report dated November 9, 2012 and the Pyrite Investigation
Report dated December 7, 2012, pH in MW-31 now shows a significantly decreasing trend.
Review of the pH time plots included in the pH Report indicates a decreasing trend in pH in most
wells across the site. By letter dated April 25, 2013, DRC accepted the conclusions that the
decreasing trends for pH are due to background effects within the aquifer matrix and are not
caused by Mill activities.
The mobility in groundwater of selenium is sensitive to decreases in pH.
3.2. Other Constituents
Sulfate, TDS, and field pH do not fall within any of the first four categories for analysis
previously used for assessment. Therefore, it falls within the fifth category, "other constituents".
Assessment of Sulfate, TDS and field pH in MW-31 will follow the process previously used for
other wells in this category.
The location of MW-31 is important when determining potential sources of contamination.
MW-31 was included in the October 2012 SAR for exceedances in sulfate and TDS. The
October 2012 SAR concluded that the increasing TDS, chloride, and sulfate concentrations were
due to the proximity of that well to the nitrate/chloride plume. MW-31 is located at the margin of
the nitrate/chloride plume. The nitrate/chloride plume has been the subject of many studies that
are described in detail in the following reports:
• Nitrate Contamination Investigation Report
• Quarterly Nitrate Reports 2009-2015
The nitrate/chloride plume is currently being addressed by the ongoing activities under the DRC-
approved CAP.
4. PLAN
4.1. General
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, SARs, pH Report, and Pyrite Report and
other recent information relating to the Chloroform and Nitrate/Chloride investigations at the
site, EFRI believes that all of the exceedances are likely due to background influences (including
a natural decreasing trend in pH across the site, rising water levels in some wells and other
factors), disruption of the aquifer by pumping, and/or the geochemical influences of the existing
chloroform and nitrate/chloride plumes.
Therefore, the first step in the analysis will be to perform an assessment of the potential sources
for each exceedance to determine whether the exceedance is due to background influences or
Mill activities. If an exceedance is determined to be due to background influences then it will
not be 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 revised GWCLs will be proposed to reflect changes in
background conditions at the site.
However, if any of the exceedances are determined to be caused by Mill activities, then EFRI
will proceed to the next step and will consider the extent and potential dispersion of the
contamination, and will perform an evaluation of potential remedial actions to restore and
maintain groundwater quality to insure that Permit limits will not be exceeded at the compliance
monitoring point.
This two-step approach is necessary, because, in light of the varied background conditions at the
site and previously identified background trends, it can't be assumed that consecutive
exceedances of a constituent in a well represents contamination that has been introduced to the
groundwater. It is first necessary to establish whether or not the exceedances represent
background influences.
4.2. Constituents Potentially Impacted by Decreasing pH Trends Across the Site
As mentioned above, EFRI has observed a decreasing trend in pH in a number of monitoring
wells across the Mill site. The mobility of selenium in groundwater is sensitive to decreases in
pH.
The primary focus of the source assessment for selenium in MW-31 will be two-fold. First,
EFRI will determine whether or not there is any new information that would suggest that the
previous analyses conducted in the New Wells Background Report, the SAR, or the pH Report
have changed since the date of that Report. This analysis will include the following:
(i) A geochemical analysis that will evaluate the behavior of the constituents in MW-31 to
determine if there are any changes in the behavior of indicator constituents, such as
Chloride, Sulfate, Fluoride and Uranium since the date of the Existing Wells
Background Report, the SAR, and the pH Report, that may suggest a change in the
behavior of that well since the date of that Report;
(ii) If necessary, a mass balance analysis that will evaluate the observed concentrations in
light of the concentrations in Mill tailings and the presence or absence of any mounding
at the location of the well in question; and
Second, a pH analysis will be performed for selenium that will:
(iii) Review the behavior of pH in the well to determine if there has been a significant
decrease in pH in the well; and
(iv) Analyze the expected impact from any such decrease in pH on the concentration of
selenium, based on currently available information.
The foregoing analyses (both steps) will be included in the Source Assessment Report.
If no significant changes are identified that would suggest that the previous analysis conducted in
the New Wells Background Report, the SAR and the pH Report, has changed other than what
would be expected from decreasing trends in pH, then EFRI will propose changes to the GWCL
for selenium in MW-31 to better reflect background concentrations at the site.
If significant changes are identified that cannot be attributed to changes in pH or other natural
phenomena, then EFRI will propose to the Director further analysis that may be required in order
to identify the source and the extent and potential dispersion of the contamination, as well as
potential remedial actions.
4.3. Other Constituents
The primary focus of the source assessment for these constituents will again be to determine
whether or not there is any new information that would suggest that the previous analysis
conducted in the New Wells Background Report, SARs, pH Report and Pyrite Report has
changed since the date of those Reports. This analysis will include the following for each
constituent listed in Table 4:
(i) A geochemical analysis that will evaluate the behavior of all of the constituents in the
well in question to determine if there are any changes in the behavior of indicator
constituents, such as Chloride, Sulfate, Fluoride and Uranium since the date of the
Existing Wells Background Report that may suggest a change in the behavior of that
well since the date of that Report;
(ii) A mass balance analysis that will evaluate the observed concentrations in light of the
concentrations in Mill tailings and the presence or absence of any mounding at the
location of the well in question;
(iii) An analysis of the extent, if any, to which the constituents may be influenced by
geochemical changes caused by migrating nitrate and/or chloride or chloroform from
the existing plumes; and
(iv) An analysis of the extent, if any, to which the constituents may be influenced by
changes in other constituents in ground water that have resulted from changes in pH or
any other natural phenomenon.
The foregoing analysis will be included in the Source Assessment Report.
If no significant changes are identified that would suggest that the previous analysis conducted in
the Background Reports for the constituents in question has changed, then EFRI will propose
changes to the GWCLs for those wells to better reflect background concentrations at the site.
If significant changes are identified that are attributable to geochemical changes caused by either
the nitrate/chloride plume or the chloroform plume, then the constituents should be considered in
connection with the applicable plume, and the associated CAP.
If significant changes are identified that cannot be attributed to one of the existing plumes, or
other background influences, then EFRI will propose to the Executive Secretary further analysis
that may be required in order to identify the source and the extent and potential dispersion of the
contamination, as well as potential remedial actions.
4.4. Expert 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 of the analyses to be performed and the conclusions to be
drawn from such analyses, including any proposed revisions to existing GWCLs. Specifically,
the SAR will follow the format of the previously submitted SARs and will include discussions,
results and conclusions of the analysis and appendices containing the following:
A geochemical analysis of selenium in MW-31
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 selenium in MW-31
A geochemical analysis of Indicator Parameters in MW-31
Descriptive Statistics
Box plots to identify extreme outliers
Histograms and Shapiro Wilk test for normality
Regression and/or Mann Kendall trend analysis
A pH analysis in MW-31
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.
With respect to MW-31, preliminary analysis suggests that selenium represents impacts due to a
statistically significant decreasing pH.
The location of MW-31 is important when determining potential sources of contamination.
MW-31 was included in the October 2012 SAR for exceedances in sulfate and TDS. The
October 2012 SAR concluded that the increasing TDS, chloride, and sulfate concentrations were
due to the proximity of that well to the nitrate/chloride plume. MW-31 is located at the margin of
the nitrate/chloride plume. The nitrate/chloride plume has been the subject of many studies that
are described in detail in separate reports.