HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRC-2015-006244 - 0901a0688057ae19GARYR. HERBERT
Governor
SPENCERJ. COX
Lieutenant Governor
Department of
Environmental Quality
Alan Matheson
Execative Director
DTVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
AND RADIATION CONTROL
Scott T. Anderson
Director
September 16,2015
David Frydenlund
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
225 Union Blvd., Suite 600
Lakewood, CO 80228
RE: Stipulation and Consent Order Docket Number UGW20-01
Chloroform Plume Remediation
Groundwater Discharge Permit No. UGW370004
Dear Mr. Frydenlund:
A copy of the final and executed Stipulation and Consent Order, Docket Number UGW20-01 (SCO) is
enclosed. This SCO approves the Groundwater Corrective Action Plan for the chloroform plume at the
White Mesa Uranium Mill according to conditions and timelines outlined therein.
If you have any questions, please call Phil Goble at (801) 536-4044.
Sincerely,
Scott T. Anderson, Director
Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
Enclosures: September 14,2015 Duly Executed Copy of SCO Docket No. UGW20-01
Chloroform Groundwater Corrective Action Plan
September 2015 Public Participation Summary
STA/TRlka
c: Worthy Glover, Health Officer, San Juan County Health Department (w/o enclosure)
Rick Meyer, Environmental Health Director, San Juan County Health Department (w/o enclosure)
195 North 1950 West . Salt Lake City, UT
Mailing Address: P.O. Box l,+4880 . Salt Lake City, UT 841144880
Telephone (801) 536-0200. Fax (801) 5364222. T.D.D. (8m) 903-3978
uuno.deq.utah.goo
Printed on 100% recycled paper
DRC-20154062,{4
IN THE MATTER OF
ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES (USA) Inc.
225 UNION BLVD., SUITE 600
LAKEWOOD. CO 80228
DOCKET No. UGW20-01-SCO
STIPULATION AND CONSENT
ORDER: CHLOROFORM PLUME
REMEDIATION
l.
This STIPULATION AND CONSENT ORDER ("ORDER ") is between ENERGY FUELS
RESOURCES (USA) INC. ("E{R") and the DIRECTOR of the Division of Waste
Management and Radiation Control' ("DIRBCTOR"), concerning violations of the Utah Water
Quality Act, ("ACT"), including sections 19-5-104, -106, -lll,-115, Utah code Annotated
("UCA") and in accordance with the Utah Administrative Procedures Act. UCA 63-46b-l to
601 .
STIPULATION
The DIRECTOR has authority to administer the ACT, for purposes of groundwater quality
at a facility licensed under the jurisdiction of the Division of Waste Management and
Radiation Control ("DWMRC"). UCA $ 19-5-102(6).
The DIRECTOR will administer the terms and provisions of this ORDER pursuant to UCA
$ l9-5-1 1s.
This ORDER does not in any way relieve EFR from any other obligation imposed under the
Act or any other State or Federal laws.
EFR accepts the following facts and stipulations:
A. EFR receives and processes natural uranium-bearing ores including certain specified
alternate feed materials, and also possesses byproduct material in the form of uranium
waste tailings and other uranium byproduct waste generated by the licensee's milling
operations at its White Mesa uranium mill ( "Mill" or "Facility"). This facility is
located approximately six miles south of Blanding, Utah on White Mesa in Sections 28,
29, 32, and 33, Township 37 South, Range 22 East, Salt Lake Baseline and Meridian,
San Juan County, Utah.
B. UCA $19-5-107(l)(a) requires that; "Except as provided in this chapter or rules made
under it, it is unlawful for any person to discharge a pollutant into waters of the state or
to cause pollution which constitutes a menace to public health and welfare, or is
' During the 2015 Utah Legislature Session, a bill was passed (Senate Bill 2015) that consolidated the Division of
Radiation Control with the Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste to form the Utah Division of Waste Management
and Radiation Control. Effective July l, 2015, pursuant to UTAH CODE AI.{N. $$ l9-1-105(lXd) and l9-5-102(6),
the authority granted to the Director of the Division of Radiation Control was transferred to the Director of the
newly created Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control .
2.
3.
4.
C.
harmful to wildlife, fish or aquatic life or impairs domestic, agricultural, industrial,
recreational, or other beneficial uses of water, or to place or cause to be placed any
wastes in a location where there is probable cause to believe it will cause pollution."
The DIRECTOR issued EFR an August 23,1999, Notice of Violation and Groundwater
Corrective Action Order Docket No. UGW-20-01 ("NOV") relating to contamination in
the shallow aquifer below their Facility with chloroform concentrations in excess of the
70 1tglL Utah Ground Water Quality Standard ("GWQS"). The August 23, 1999 NOV
included an order to submit and conduct a Groundwater Contamination Investigation,
submit a report thereon ("CIR"), and submit a plan and schedule for implementation and
completion of a Groundwater Corrective Action Plan ("GCAP") pursuant to the
provisions of the Utah Administrative Code ("UAC") R317-6-6.15(D).
In response to the NOV, EFR submitted a series of documents outlining plans for
investigation of the chloroform contamination. This plan of action and preliminary
schedule was set out in EFR submittals dated: September 20,1999; June 30, 2000; April
14,2005; and November 29,2006.
During the course of the investigation, EFR submitted multiple reports. These reports
were reviewed by the DIRECTOR, and additional information was requested as needed.
In an effort to define the magnitude and physical extent of contaminant concentrations in
the shallow aquifer, EFR submitted multiple quarterly monitoring reports. These reports
were reviewed by the DIRECTOR and requests for information made as needed.
In the course of the investigation, chloroform and other related man-made solvents were
found in concentrations above their respective GWQS in the White Mesa shallow aquifer.
These man-made solvents included: dichloromethane, chloromethane, and carbon
tetrachloride. Collectively, these four solvents are contained in the Chloroform Plume.
The physical extent of the chloroform plume is defined by concentrations of chloroform
in excess of the GWQS for chloroform.
Based on this investigation, the contamination has been attributed to the Mill operation
by a former owner/operator of a temporary laboratory facility that was located at the site
prior to and during construction of the Mill, and from septic drain fields that were used
by the former owner/operator for laboratory and sanitary wastes prior to construction of
the Mill's tailings cells.
EFR submitted a draft GCAP dated August22,2007. The draft GCAP was reviewed by
the DIRECTOR, who advised EFR in 2013 that it was incomplete. In an effort to
expedite and formalize active and continued remediation of the Chloroform Plume, both
parties have agreed to the GCAP found in Attachment l, below.
Corrective action to completely remediate the contamination will be in accordance with
the terms of this ORDER. If future information indicates that the Corrective Action is
inadequate, additional measures may be required at the discretion of the DIRECTOR.
EFR retains all administrative and judicial rights to appeal or otherwise contest such
required measures.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
ORDER
EFR IS HEREBY ORDERED (unless otherwise authorized by the DIRECTOR) to implement
corrective action in accordance with the terms of this ORDER includins but not limited to the
following:
1. EFR shall permanently restore groundwater quality in all pumping wells and
performance monitoring wells completed in the White Mesa shallow aquifer for all
contaminants of concern in accordance with the Ground Water Corrective Action
Objectives found in Part I of the GCAP before termination of either this ORDER or the
Radioactive Material License No. UT 1900479.
2. EFR shall comply with all groundwater corrective action performance standards found in
Part II of the GCAP.
3. EFR shall comply with all groundwater corrective action monitoring and reporting
requirements found in Part III of the GCAP.
4. EFR shall comply with all general reporting requirements found in Part IV of the GCAP.
5. EFR shall fulfill all compliance responsibilities found in Part V of the GCAP.
6. EFR shall comply with all general requirements found in Part VI of the GCAP.
7. If EFR determines that:
A. The number of years of future groundwater pumping required to remove the
Chloroform Plume contaminants and permanently return the shallow ground
water quality to levels below their respective GCALs as defined in Table 2 of
the GCAP (Part I.G), after taking into consideration any changes or potential
changes identified in paragraph J of this ORDER, will or could exceed the
operational life of the Mill, or;
B. Continuation of such pumping would be ineffective, impracticable or would not
be cost-effective;
Then EFR may, at its option, submit a separate application for revision to the GCAP for
DIRECTOR review approval. Any application for a revised GCAP would be a separate
action and outside the scope of this ORDER. Such an application may evaluate other
technologies to remediate the Chloroform Plume and would include performance of a
transport assessment, a hazatd assessment, and an exposure assessment along with a
corrective action assessment including an evaluation of best available remedial
technologies. EFR selection of a technology for implementation will be based on an
evaluation whether the technology will remediate contamination to meet the requirements
of UAC R317-6-6.15.
8. On or before 120 days after the date of this ORDER, EFR shall submit a Chloroform
Project Reclamation Plan and Cost Estimate (CPRP-CE) for DIRECTOR approval that
will include:
A. Specific details on how the Chloroform Plume remediation system will be:
l) Operated, maintained (including monitoring and reporting) and, modified (if
needed) for at least a six year period, and
2) Decommissioned at the time of facility closure which will include, but is
not limited to: well plugging and abandonment, and removal of pipelines from
the pumping wells to tailing cells or the Mill process, and
B. A cost estimate of all activities found in Item 8.A. of this ORDER. Said cost
estimate shall be prepared by or under the direction of a Utah Licensed
Professional Engineer.
In the event that the DIRECTOR determines the CPRP-CE to be incomplete, or
for any reason additional information is required, EFR shall fully resolve and
satisfy any request for additional information within 60 calendar days of written
DIRECTOR request or such other schedule as may be approved by the
DIRECTOR.
9. Within 60 calendar days of DIRECTOR approval of the CPRP-CE required by ltem 8 of
this ORDER, EFR will modify the financial surety required by Condition 9.5 of their
Radioactive Materials License Number UT1900479, to include the approved groundwater
corrective action system operation and decommissioning costs.
10. After DIRECTOR approval of the CPRP-CE required by Item 8, EFR will, at the
request of the DIRECTOR revise the CPRP-CE every two years as necessary to reflect
any needs or performance concems of the pump and treat groundwater remediation
system, as documented in the two-year Corrective Action Comprehensive Monitoring
Evaluation ("CACME") report required under Part III.H of the GCAP. If, after receipt of
the CACME report, the DIRECTOR determines additional information or changes are
needed to the revised CPRP-CE, EFR shall provide the required information, modify the
document, and resolve all DIRECTOR concerns within 60 calendar days of written
DIRECTOR notice, or such other schedule as may be approved by the DIRECTOR.
STIPULATED PENALTIES
EFR agrees to the following stipulated penalties upon receipt of written demand and/or notice from
the DIRECTOR:
In the event that EFR fails to submit the CPRP-CE on or before 120 days after the date of
this ORDER, as mandated by Item 8 of this ORDER; EFR agrees to pay stipulated
penalties in the amount of $1,000 per calendar day.
In the event that EFR fails to fully resolve and satisfu any DIRECTOR request for
additional information regarding the CPRP-CE within 60 calendar days of the
DIRECTOR'S written request or such other schedule as approved the DIRECTOR,
pursuant to ltem 8 of this ORDER; EFR agrees to pay stipulated penalties in the amount of
$1,000 per calendar day per violation.
In the event that EFR fails to adequately revise the financial surety required by Item 9 of
this ORDER within 60 calendar days of DIRECTOR approval; EFR agrees to pay
stipulated penalties of S2,000 per calendar day.
In the event that EFR fails to comply with any groundwater corrective action objectives
required by Parts I.C, D, E, F, H or J of the GCAP, EFR agrees to pay stipulated penalties in
the amount of $500 per calendar day per violation.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
In the event that EFR fails to comply with the chloroform plume monitoring network
performance standards of Part II.F of the GCAP, EFR agrees to pay stipulated penalties in
the amount of $500 per calendar day per violation.
In the event that EFR fails to comply with any compliance monitoring well excursion
requirement mandated by Part II.H of the GCAP, EFR agrees to pay stipulated penalties in
the amount of $2,000 per calendar day per violation.
In the event that EFR fails to comply with any other requirement of Part II of the GCAP
(other than Part II.G), not listed above, EFR agrees to pay stipulated penalties in the amount
of $500 per calendar day per violation.
In the event that EFR fails to comply with any requirement mandated by Parts IV, V and VI
of the GCAP, EFR agrees to pay stipulated penalties in the amount of $500 per calendar
day per violation.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
EFR agrees to pay any required penalties within 30 calendar days of written notice from
the DIRECTOR in the form of a check, made payable to the State of Utah, and delivered
or mailed to:
Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control,
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 144880
195 North 1950 West
Salt Lake city, utah 84114-4880
The DIRECTOR will view completion of all requirements as outlined in this ORDER
as compliance with the ORDER.
Nothing contained in this ORDER shall preclude the DIRECTOR from taking
additional actions to include additional penalties against EFR for violations not resolved
by this ORDER.
Nothing in this ORDER shall constitute a waiver by EFR to raise in defense any legal or
factual contention for future allegations of noncompliance.
Nothing in this ORDER shall constitute or be considered as a release from any claims, to
include natural resource damage claims, cause of action, or demand in law or equity
which the STATE may have against EFR, or any other person, firm, partnership or
corporation for any liability arising out of or relating in any way to the release of
pollutants to waters of the State.
While the DIRECTOR is presently not considering additional enforcement actions for
any past or ongoing violations, nothing in this ORDER shall preclude the DIRECTOR
from taking such actions to include other penalties against EFR for violations of the ACT
or violations not resolved bv this ORDER.
l.
z.
3.
4.
5.
6.
AGREED to this 14,t-
ENERGY RESOURCES
Sr. Vice President and General Counsel
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
By_
Dav
UTAH DIVISION
MANAGEMENT
Division of Waste Management
and Radiation Control
6
ATTACHMENT 1
Groundwater Corrective Action Plan (GCAP)
For the
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. Chloroform Plume
At the White Mesa Uranium Recovery Facility
Near Blanding, Utah
Docket No. UGW20-01-SCO
Groundwater Corrective Action Plan (GCAP)
For Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
White Mesa Uranium Mill Chloroform Plume
Near Blanding, Utah
Docket No. UGW20-01-SCO
December,2014
Revision 0
Table of Contents Page
PART I. Groundwater Corrective Action Objectives .............. I
A. Duty to Complete Corrective Action....... ....................... I
B. Chloroform Remediation Well Designation................ ..................... I
C. Duty to Convert Certain Existing Monitoring Wells to Pumping Wells ...........2
D. Duty to Install Additional New Pumping Well ..............2
E. Duty to Protect, Operate, and Maintain All Monitoring and Pumping Wells......................2
F. Duty to Provide Adequate Compliance Monitoring Well Network... ................3
G. Groundwater Corrective Action Limits....... ................... 3
H. Duty to Perform Corrective Action ..............3
I. Director Modification of Groundwater Corrective Action Plan (GCAP) Requirements..... 3
J. Two-Year Reviews of GCAP.. .....................4
Part II. Groundwater Corrective Action Performance Standards............... ................. 5
A. Chloroform Plume Definition ...................... 5
B. Long Term Chloroform Plume Control Standard
C. Well Construction Standards.. ......................5
D. Disposal of Extracted Groundwater.............. .............'... 5
E. Pumping Well Operation Requirements...... ................... 5
F. Chloroform Plume Monitoring Network Performance Standards ....................................... 5
G. Compliance Monitoring Well Performance Standard ....'.................6
H. Compliance Well Chloroform Excursion Requirements............. .......................6
I. Chloroform Plume Monitoring Network Performance Standards for Wells within 500 feet
of EFR Property Boundary ................7
J. Director Notice .'...... 8
K. Cessation of Groundwater Corrective Action .........'.'.... 8
Part III. Corrective Action Monitoring and Reporting Requirements ..'.. l0
A. Quarterly Monitoring Requirements............ .......'......'. l0
B. Quarterly Monitoring Report Content Requirements and Schedule ................ l0
C. Chloroform Corrective Action Reports Schedule ..'..... 15
D. Chloroform Plume Network Non-compliance Reporting ......'....... 15
E. Compliance Monitoring Well Contaminant Excursion (Non-compliance) Reporting....... l5
F. New Well Completion Reports (Pumping, Performance and Compliance Monitoring) .. l5
G. Submittal Deadlines for New Well Monitoring Results ......'......... 15
H. Two-Year Corrective Action Comprehensive Monitoring Evaluation (CACME) Report...... l5
Part IV. General Reporting Requirements............ ........'.'......17
A. Representative Samp1in9............. ...............l7
B. Analytical Procedures ............... 17C. Penalties for Tamping ............... ................. 17D. Reporting of Monitoring Resu1ts.............:..... ............... 17E. Additional Monitoring ..............l7F. Records Contents... ................... 17
G. Retention of Records ................l7H. Notice ofNoncompliance Reporting. ......... 18I. Other Noncompliance Reporting............ .... 18J. Inspection and Entry.. ............... l8
Part V. Compliance Responsibilities ................... 19A. Duty to Comply ...... 19B. Penalties for Violations of Order / GCAP Conditions ................... 19C. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity Not a Defense .......... 19D. Proper Operation and Maintenance........ .... 19
Part VI. General Requirements............ ................20A. Planned Changes ....20B. Anticipated Noncompliance.......... .............20C. GCAP Actions ........20D. Duty to Provide Information............... .......20E. Other Information............... ......20F. Signatory Requirements............ .................20G. Penalties for Falsification of Reports......... ..................21H. Availability of Reports .............21I. Property Rights....... ..................21J. Severability .............21K. Transfers.. ...............21L. State Laws ..............22M. Reopener Provision ..................22
Groundwater Corrective Action Plan
December,2014
PART I. GROLTNDWATER CORRECTIVE ACTION OBJECTIVES
Revision 0
Part I
A. Duty to Complete Corrective Action - Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. ("EFR") shall
remediate and permanently restore groundwater quality of the shallow aquifer at the
White Mesa uranium mill (the "Millo'or "Facility") to meet the Groundwater Corrective
Action Limits ("GCALs") defined in Part I.G, below, before termination of Utah
Radioactive Material License UT1900479. This groundwater remediation shall be
completed through use and application of pump and treat technology as approved in this
Groundwater Corrective Action Plan ("GCAP").
B. Chloroform Remediation Well Designation - all shallow wells associated with this GCAP
are designated by the Director into one of three categories, defined as follows2 and listed
in Tables 1A and 1B, below:
1) Pumping Wells - whose purpose is to provide chloroform mass removal and, to the
extent practical, hydraulic containment of the Chloroform Plume (as defined by Part
II.A), by continuous extraction of groundwater as a means to arrest, control, and
remove all chloroform related contaminants until they fall below their respective
GCAL, as defined in Part LG, Table 2.
2) Performance Monitoring (PM) Wells - including shallow monitoring wells found
inside the physical boundaries of the Chloroform Plume (as defined in Part II.A).
These wells may have groundwater contaminant concentrations above the GCAL
concentrations defined in Part I.G, Table 2.
3) Compliance Monitoring (CM) Wells - including wells: l) found hydraulically down
or cross-gradient of both the Chloroform Plume and the chloroform contamination
source(s) and 2) that shall at all times contain groundwater with chloroform
concentrations at or below the 70 ug/l GCAL concentration defined in fable 2 (Part
I.G).
Table 1A. EFR Chloroform Plume Wel
Pumping
Wells
Performance
Monitoring
GM) Wells
Compliance Monitoring
(CM) Wells
MW-4 TW4-6 MW-32 TW4-23
MW-26 TW4-7 TW4-3 TW4-26
TW4-19 TW4-8 TW4-5 TW4-27
TW4-20 TW4-10 TW4-9 TW4-28
TW4-4 TW4-16 TW4-12 TW4-30
TW4-l *TW4-29 TW4-13 TW4-31
TW4-2*TW4-33 TW4-14 TW4-32
TW4-21*TW4-18 TW4-34
2 See EPA guidance "A Systematic Approach for Evaluation of Capture Zones at Pump and Treat Systems",
January, 2008 (EPA 600/R-08/003).
Groundwater Corrective Action Plan
December,2014
Revision 0
Part I
C.
Pumping
Wells
Performance
Monitoring
GM) Wells
Compliance Monitoring
(CM) Wells
TW4-ll*TW4-3s
TW4-37**TW4-36
*Existing Chloroform Well to be converted to a pumping well (see Part LC).**New Pumping Well to be installed (see Part I.D)
Table lB. EFR Nitrate Plume Well ons S
Pumpine Wells'
TW4-22
TW4-24
TW4-25
to this GCAP
Duty to Convert Certain Existing Monitoring Wells to Pumping Wells
l) Within 120 calendar days of Director written approval of this GCAP, EFR shall
convert existing monitoring wells TW4-l,TW4-2, TW4-l I and TW4-21 to Pumping
Wells to meet the requirements of Parts I and II of this GCAP. For these wells EFR
shall comply with the requirements of Part II.C of this GCAP.
2) As these are existing wells, no as-built reports will be required.
Failure to meet these requirements in whole or in part will constitute non-compliance.
Duty to Install Additional New Pumping Well
l) Within 120 calendar days of Director approval of this GCAP, EFR shall install
and make operational a new Pumping well (TW4-37) between existing pumping
wells TW4-20 and TW4-22, at a location to be approved by the Director, to meet the
requirements of Parts I and II of this GCAP. For this new Pumping Well, EFR shall
comply with the requirements of Parts II.C and III.F of this GCAP.
2) Within 60 calendar days of well completion, EFR will complete aquifer testing
and submit a well as-built report for Director approval for the new Pumping Well, in
accordance with the requirements of Part LF.6 of the Mill's Groundwater Discharge
Permit.
Failure to meet these requirements in whole or in part will constitute non-compliance.
Duty to Protect, Operate, and Maintain All Monitoring and Pumping Wells - for purposes
Pumping Wells TW4-22,TW4-24 and TW4-25 approved by the Director and operated by EFR under the
Nitrate groundwater remediation project (i.e., Nitrate GCAP), shall also be subject to all requirements of the
Chloroform GCAP, as they should also contribute to the cleanup of the chloroform plume.
D.
E.
Groundwater Corrective Action Plan
December,2014
Revision 0
Part I
of corrective action and determination of compliance, EFR shall protect, operate and
maintain at all times the Pumping Wells, Performance Monitoring Wells, and
Compliance Monitoring Wells as defined in Part I.B, Table 1A and lB, and all associated
equipment as authorized in this GCAP, in accordance with the currently approved EFR
document entitled: "Operations and Maintenance Plan Chloroform Pumping System,
White Mesa Mill, Blanding Utah. " ("EFR O&M Plan"), pursuant to Part II.E of this
GCAP.
F. Duty to Provide Adequate Compliance Monitoring Well Network - EFR shall at all times
provide sufficient design, construction, numbers and locations of Compliance Monitoring
Wells as approved by the Director. At a minimum, the network of Compliance
Monitoring wells shall:
1) Provide early waming of any Chloroform Plume contamination migration,
pursuant to the well designations and functions of Part I.B, and
2) Meet the requirements of Part II of this GCAP at all times.
Failure to comply with any plan or schedule required by the Director in order for EFR to
meet this standard, in whole or in part, shall constitute non-compliance.
G. Groundwater Corrective Action Limits ("GCAL"s) - EFR shall fully and completely
remediate groundwater quality in the White Mesa shallow aquifer by permanently
restoring shallow groundwater contaminants at all points in the aquifer to concentrations
at or below the GCAL found in Table 2. below before termination of Utah Radioactive
Materials License UTI 900479.
Table 2. Groundwater Corrective Action Lrmrts (GCALS
Contaminant GWOS (uell)'GCAL (uell)
Chloroform 70.0 70.0
Dichloromethane 5.0 5.0
Chloromethane 30.0 30.0
Carbon Tetrachloride 5.0 5.0
Total Nitrate + Nitrite (as N)10.0 me/l 10.0 me/l
Duty to Perform Corrective Action - under no circumstances shall EFR cease, desist
from, or modiff any activity required by this GCAP without prior written Director
approval, and, where required, completion of public notice and comment period pursuant
to Utah Administrative Code ("UAC") R3l7-6-6.15.E.
Director Modification of Groundwater Corrective Action Plan Requirements - in the
event that non-compliance is determined pursuant to Parts I or II, additional Pumping
Wells, Performance Monitoring Wells and/or Compliance Monitoring Wells may be
required by the Director.
4 GWQS defined in Ground Water Discharge Permit UGW370004, Part I.D.l and Table 2.
3
H.
Groundwater Corrective Action Plan
December,2014
Revision 0
Part I
J. Two-Year Reviews of GCAP - Every two years, the Director will evaluate the Two-Year
Corrective Action Comprehensive Monitoring Evaluation (CACME) Report submitted by
EFR under Part III.H to determine whether this GCAP continues to be protective of
public health and the environment.
l) If, based on these reviews, the Director determines that this GCAP is not
protective of public health and the environment, the Director may, in accordance with
a schedule to be approved by the Director, change the current designation of any
specific well in Part I.B, Tables lA or lB, or require the addition of new wells in
order to ensure protection of public health and the environment. Likewise, as
groundwater remediation improves local groundwater quality, the Director may
authorize conversion of Pumping Wells to Performance Monitoring Wells.
2) Without limiting the generality of paragraph l), il based on a review of the
CACME, the Director determines that the chloroform mass removal rates from
pumping during the two-year period have dropped substantially, then the Director
may take one of the following courses of action:
i. If the Director determines that the mass removal rates have dropped
substantially during the two-year period as a result of reduced
concentrations within the plume, then no action may be required.
ii. If the Director determines that the mass removal rates have dropped
substantially during the two-year period as a result of lost well
productivity, and the lost productivity is determined to be a well efficiency
problem, then the Director may require EFR to re-develop or replace the
inefficient wells in accordance with a schedule to be approved by the
Director.
iii. If the Director determines that the lost productivity is due to a general
reduction in saturated thickness, then the Director may require EFR to
perform analytical or numerical models, in accordance with a schedule to
be approved by the Director, to evaluate the potential effectiveness of
adding existing or new wells to the pumping network to improve overall
productivity. If the analysis indicates that overall productivity will not
improve significantly by adding wells, or if suitable well locations are not
available, then no action may be required. No action may also be
appropriate because a reduction in saturated thickness is expected to
correspond to a reduction in the volume of contaminated water within the
plume, which may be an indication that the system is working
satisfactorily.
Failure to comply with any plan or schedule required by the Director in order for EFR to
meet these requirements, in whole or in part, will constitute non-compliance.
4
Groundwater Corrective Action Plan
December,20l4
Revision 0
Part II
A.
PART II. GROLTNDWATER CORRECTIVE ACTION PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Chloroform Plume Definition - for purposes of groundwater remediation the chloroform
plume ("Chloroform Plume") shall consist of those areas of the shallow aquifer at the
White Mesa facility where groundwater chloroform contamination is found in
concentrations above the 70 ug/l GCAL value listed in Part I.G, Table 2. The physical
extent of the contaminant plume shall be defined and circumscribed by a 70 ug/l
isoconcentration line for chloroform, as approved by the Director. This CAP applies to
the Chloroform Plume as so defined and does not apply to any other groundwater
contamination not found in Part I.G, Table 2, that may be identified elsewhere at the
White Mesa Facility.
Long Term Chloroform Plume Control Standard - EFR shall maintain the Chloroform
Plume on properfy owned and controlled by EFR including, but not limited to lands
found in Sections 28,29,32 and 33, Township 37 South, Range 22East, Salt Lake Base
and Meridian, San Juan County, Utah.
Well Construction Standards - all Pumping, Compliance Monitoring, or Performance
Monitoring Wells shall be designed and coistructed to meet the following minimum
requirements:
l) Be permanent in both design and construction;
2) Fully screened and completed in the shallow aquifer; and
3) Designed and constructed in compliance with Utah Admin. Code ("UAC") R3l7-6-
6.3(l)(6), including the EPA RCRA Ground Water Monitoring Technical
Enforcement Guidance Document, 1 986, OSWER-9950. 1
Disposal of Extracted Groundwater - all groundwater extracted by the Pumping Wells
(Part I.B, Tables lA and lB) will only be disposed of in the Mill's Tailings management
system or fed into the Mill process.
Pumping Well Operation Requirements - the Pumping Wells and pumping system will be
operated and maintained in accordance with the currently approved EFR O&M Plan. In
the event any conflict exists between the EFR O&M Plan and the requirements of this
GCAP, the mandates of the GCAP shall prevail. Failure to meet this performance
standard, in whole or in part, will constitute non-compliance.
Chloroform Plume Monitoring Network Performance Standards - EFR will at all times
provide and maintain the number and locations of Pumping Wells, Performance
Monitoring Wells and Compliance Monitoring Wells set out in Tables lA and lB of Part
I.B (subject to adjustment pursuant to Part I.J) and as may be required to install additional
wells pursuant to Parts I.J or Parts II.H, I or J. Said well network shall ensure that the full
physical extent and location of the Chloroform Plume is bound by determination of both:
1) The physical location of the 70 pgll chloroform iso-concentration boundary in the
shallow aquifer; and 2) Demonstration and justification that sufficient numbers and
locations of monitoring wells are present to show groundwater flow directions at and
near the outer margins of the Chloroform Plume (i.e., at and beyond 70 pgll
chloroform iso-concentration boundary).
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Groundwater Corrective Action Plan
December,20l4
Revision 0
Part II
Failure to maintain the wells as designated in Tables lA or lB of Part I.B (subject to
adjustrnent pursuant to Part I.J) or to install and make operational any additional wells
required under Part I.J or Parts II.H, I or J within the time frames set out in those Parts
will constitute non-compliance.
G. Compliance Monitoring Well Performance Standard - all Compliance Monitoring Wells,
as defined in Part I.B, Table 1A, shall at all times maintain contaminant concentrations
that are at or below their respective GCAL values, defined in Part I.G, Table 2. An
exceedance shall be defined as the presence of chloroform in any Compliance Monitoring
Well in excess of the Table 2 GCAL (70 ug/l) for two or more consecutive quarters.
H. Compliance Monitoring Well Chloroform Excursion Requirements - if chloroform in any
Compliance Monitoring Well exceeds its Part I.G, Table 2 GCAL concentration (70 ug/l)
in two consecutive quarterly sampling events, EFR will:
1) At any time EFR submits a quarterly report that demonstrates an exceedance (second
quarter of chloroform exceedance), EFR will provide a written exceedance notice to
the Director ("Exceedance Notice") for all wells that have demonstrated such an
exceedance.
2) Within 60 days after the time of submittal of a quarterly report that demonstrates an
exceedance as defined in Part II.G, EFR will provide a plan and schedule for
remedial actions to address and resolve the excursion, for Director approval. This
plan and schedule may include, but is not limited to:
i) Installation of one or more Pumping Wells in the vicinity (or an alternate
pumping location as approved by the Director due to low productivity of certain
wells/areas of the site) of the former compliance monitoring well found in
exceedance, or altematively, EFR may convert the former compliance monitoring
well, now in exceedance, to a Pumping Well; and/or
ii) Installation of one or more Replacement Compliance Monitoring Wells at
locations that are no greater than 200 feet downgradient of the former compliance
well, currently in exceedance.
3) Within 90 calendar days of Director approval, or such other schedule as may be
approved by the Director of said plan and schedule, EFR shall install and make
operational all new or replacement Compliance Monitoring Wells and Pumping wells
to meet the requirements of Parts I and II of this GCAP. For any modified or new
well installed, EFR shall comply with the requirements of Part II.C of this GCAP,
and for any new wells installed, EFR shall also comply with the requirements of Part
III.F of this GCAP. The revised well network shall comply with the requirements of
Part II.F.
Failure to complete installation of any new well under this Part, within required time
frames will constitute non-compliance.
4) Within 60 calendar days of new well completion, EFR will complete aquifer testing
and submit a well as-built report for Director approval for all newly installed,
Groundwater Corrective Action Plan
December,2014
Revision 0
Part II
confirmation
Schedule for
Pumping Wells and Compliance Monitoring Wells (not included in previously
submitted as-built reports), in accordance with the requirements of Part I.F.6 of the
Mill's Groundwater Discharge Permit.
L Chloroform Plume Monitoring Network Performance Standards for Wells within 500 feet
of EFR Property Boundary.
l) If chloroform in any Compliance Monitoring Well located within 500 feet of EFR
property boundary exceeds its Part I.G, Table 2 GCAL concentration (70 pg/l) in any
single sample event, EFR will collect an additional sample from the well within 30
calendar days from the date of receipt of the initial analytical results to confirm the
result. If the result is confirmed to be greater than 70 pglI, EFR will:
a) Notifr the Director within five calendar days of receiving
sample results and, within 30 days thereafter, provide a Plan
the
and
remedial actions to address and resolve the excursion for Director approval. This
plan and schedule will include, but is not limited to:
i) Within 60 calendar days of Director approval the monitoring well in
exceedance, or other well approved by the Director, will be converted to a
pumping well. Pumping well determination will be based upon hydraulic
properties and anticipated effects of future pumping.
ii) Within 60 days of Director approval at least two additional Compliance
Monitoring wells will be installed no further than 200 feet downgradient
of the new pumping well or 50 feet from the property boundary
(whichever is closer to the well in exceedance). If the wells are to be
placed 50 feet from the property boundary, an additional downgradient
well for a total of three wells will be installed.
iii) Within 90 days of Director approval the new pumping well and new
monitoring wells will be sampled for contaminants listed in Table 2 of
Part I.G.
b) EFR shall install and make fully operational all new or modified equipment,
components, and or procedures of the revised Chloroform remediation system.
For any modified or new well installed, EFR shall comply with Part II.C of this
GCAP, and for any new wells installed, EFR shall also comply with the
requirements of Part III.F of this GCAP.
c) Within 60 calendar days of new well completion, EFR will complete aquifer
testing and submit a well as-built report for Director approval for all newly
instalied Pumping Wells and Compliance Monitoring Wells (not included in
previously submitted as-built reports), in accordance with the requirements of Part
I.F.6 of the Mill's Groundwater Discharge Permit.
2) If chloroform in any Compliance Monitoring Well located within 50 feet of EFR
property boundary exceeds its Part LG, Table 2 GCAL concentration (70 pgll), EFR
will:
Groundwater Corrective Action Plan
December.2014
Revision 0
Part II
of discovery and perform thea) Notifu the Director within five calendar days
following:
i) Within 30 calendar days of receipt of initial analytical results convert the
exceeding monitoring well to a pumping well.
ii) Within 30 calendar days of receipt of initial analytical results submit for
Director approval a plan to prevent chloroform contamination from
leaving the Mill property.
iii) Within 30 calendar days of installation new monitoring wells, including
pumping wells, which are installed at or within 50 feet from the property
boundary, will be sampled.
b) EFR shall install and make fully operational all new or modified equipment,
components, and or procedures of the revised Chloroform remediation system.
For any modified or new well installed, EFR shall comply with Part II.C of this
GCAP, and for any new wells installed, EFR shall also comply with the
requirements of Part III.F of this GCAP.
3) Within 60 calendar days of new well completion, EFR will complete aquifer testing
and submit a well as-built report for Director approval for all newly installed
Pumping Wells and Compliance Monitoring Wells (not included in previously
submitted as-built reports), in accordance with the requirements of Part I.F.6 of the
Mill's Groundwater Discharge Permit.
J. Director Notice - in the event that the Director provides written notification to EFR that
additional Performance Monitoring Wells, Compliance Monitoring Wells, Pumping
Wells and/or other equipment or procedures are needed at the facility to monitor, control,
contain and/or remove the Chloroform Plume in accordance with this CAP, EFR will
install, modi$, operate and maintain the required wells, equipment, or procedures in
accordance with the requirements found in Part II of this GCAP. Changes mandated by
the Director may be subject to the public notice and comment requirements of UAC
R3l7-6-6.15(E). Upon completion of this public participation, EFR will install and
make operational any new or modified Pumping Well, Performance Monitoring Well, or
Compliance Monitoring Wells within 90 calendar days of written Director Notice.
K' Cessation of Groundwater Corrective Action - before termination of Utah Radioactive
Materials License UTI900479 ("License") for the White Mesa facility, EFR shall
perform all activities required by this GCAP, until completion ofi
l) Steady-State Chloroform Plume Remediation Demonstration - including an
affirmative demonstration that the groundwater contaminant concentrations in and
near the Chloroform Plume, currently found under all land owned and operated by
EFR, have permanently fallen and remain below their respective Part I.G, Table 2GCALs in all Pumping Wells, Performance Monitoring Wells and Compliance
Monitoring Wells as found in Part I.B, Table lA. ihis requirement will be
considered to be satisfied if all contaminants in all White Mesa shallow aquifer wellsremain below such GCALs for a minimum continuous period of hve-years after
cessation of all Pumping Well operations for purposes of removing the Chloroform
Groundwater Corrective Action Plan
December,2014
Plume; and
2) Public Participation and Director
pursuant to UAC R3l7-6-6.15(E)
Director.
Revision 0
Part II
completion of public participation
of prior written approval of the
Approval -
and receipt
Groundwater Corrective Action Plan
December,2014
Revision 0
Part III
PART III. CORRECTIVE ACTION MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
A. Quarterly Monitoring Requirements - EFR shall perform quarterly monitoring of all
Pumping Wells, Performance Monitoring Wells and Compliance Monitoring Wells, as
follows:
l) Groundwater Monitoring Quality Assurance Plan - all groundwater monitoring and
analysis performed under this GCAP shall be conducted in accordance with the
Quality Assurance Plan under the Mill's Groundwater Discharge Permit ("QAP")
currently approved by the Director. In addition to GCAL Parameters specified in
Table 2 (Part I.G), each well shall also be analyzed for chloride. Any
nonconformance with QAP requirements in a given quarterly groundwater
monitoring period will be corrected and reported to the Director on or before
submittal of the next quarterly groundwater monitoring report.
2) Groundwater Monitoring Modifications - before any modification to the procedures,
methods, or equipment specified in the approved groundwater monitoring QAP, EFR
must obtain prior written approval from the Director.
B. Quarterly Monitoring Report Content Requirements and Schedule - EFR shall submit
quarterly groundwater monitoring reports for Director approval, as follows:
1) General Chloroform Corrective Action Report Content Requirements - will include,
but are not limited to the following information:
a) Introduction
b) Sampling and Monitoring Plan Description
o Description of monitor wells.
o Description of sampling methodology, equipment and decontamination
procedures.o Identification of all quality assurance samples, e.g. trip blanks, equipment
blanks, and duplicate samples.
c) Data, Maps and Figures - including, but not limited to:
Copies of all field data sheets used to record all equipment and sampling
procedures used to collect groundwater quality samples, including results
of all field measurements and chain of custody forms.
Copies of all laboratory analytical reports of all groundwater quality
samples collected each quarter.
Summary tables of depth to groundwater and water level elevation for
each groundwater sampling event during the quarter.o Groundwater equipotential maps for each groundwater quality sampling
event.o Groundwater capture zone maps for each pumping well at the White Mesa
facility, including both chloroform and nitrate pumping systems. Each
map will display groundwater flowlines or streamtubes.
l0
Groundwater Corrective Action Plan
December.20l4
Revision 0
Part III
Chloroform isoconcentration maps for each groundwater quality sampling
event 5.
Hydrographs (time series charts) of groundwater elevations in each
Performance Monitoring Well, Compliance Monitoring Well, and
Pumping Well, for each groundwater quality sampling event.
Contaminant concentration time series graphs for chloroform laboratory
results in all monitoring and pumping wells sampled during each quarter.
In the case of Performance Monitoring Wells, EFR will include linear
regression analysis on each time series concentration graph.
d) Data Interpretation
Interpretation of groundwater levels (head and elevation), groundwater
gradients and flow directions, including a discussion on:
l) A current site groundwater contour map for the quarter will be
contemporaneous for all wells on site, not to exceed a maximum
time difference of seven calendar days;
2) Hydrographs to show groundwater elevation in each monitor well
over time;
3) Depth to groundwater measured and groundwater elevation from
each monitor well summarized in a data table that includes historic
groundwater level data for each well; and
4) An evaluation of the effectiveness of hydraulic capture of all
contaminants of concern.
Interpretation of all analytical results for each well, including a discussion
on:
l) Current chloroform isoconcentration map with one of the
isoconcentration lines showing the 70 VglL boundary;
2) Graphs showing chloroform concentration trends in each well thru
time; and
3) Analytical results for each well summaized in a data table that
includes historic analytical results for each well.
Calculate chloroform mass removed by each Pumping Well, as based on
mass and groundwater volume. Calculations will include:
l) Total historic quarterly chlorofonn mass removed from each
Pumping Well to date, and a sum thereof (to the extent historic
data are available);
2) Total chloroform mass removed for the quarter, based on all
Pumping Wells in operation (to the extent historic data are
available); and
3) Time series graph to display the quarterly chloroform mass
removed from each pumping well over the life of pumping
5 Each quarterly shallow aquifer chloroform isoconcentration map will be prepared at the same X-Y scale as the
capture zone map.
1l
Groundwater Corrective Action Plan
December,2014
Revision 0
Part III
6
7
8
operations (to the extent historic data are available).
e) Current EFR compliance status regarding all performance standards required
under Part II of this GCAP.
2) Quarterly Contour Map Based Chloroform Plume Mass Calculations ("CPMC") - the
quarterly report shall include a determination of the total chloroform mass remaining
in the shallow aquifer for the current quarter at White Mesa, as calculated by EFR in
accordance with the Director approved CPMC Method pursuant to Appendix A. Said
chloroform plume mass calculations shall include the following information:
a) Surfer @ ("Surfer") Electronic Input File 6- used by EFR to generate the
Chloroform Contour Map for the quarter. The Surfer input file will be submitted
to the Director in electronic form as an Excel spreadsheet, and will include, but is
not limited to the following information:
o Well nameo Well location in Universal Transverse Mercator ("UTM") coordinates; in
Easting and Northing coordinate pairs in units of meters (m).o Laboratory reported chloroform concentration (ug/l) in each well sampled
during the quarter, and the corresponding log equivalent value.. Any artificial or pseudo-data added by EFR to enhance or modifu the
measured data for the quarter.o Identification of any EFR substitution of measured data from the previous
quarter under Step 1.a of the CPMC Method, including either detectable or
non-detectable values.
b) Surfer Gridding Parameters - EFR will disclose the gridding parameters used in
the software to generate all Grid files and Maps for the quarter of interest. At a
minimum, this information shall include:
o Minimum and maximum X values used 7
o Minimum and maximum Y values used 7
o Grid cell area and spacing interval used in both X and Y directions 8
o Gridding method used - EFR will use omnidirectional linear kriging
technique to create all contour map Grid files. Key kriging parameters
and properties will also be disclosed in the quarterly report, including, but
not limited to: kriging type (point or block); mathematical model used;
variogram range, sill, and nugget effect; and anisotropy ratio and angle;
etc.
Surfer@ is a contouring and 3-D surface mapping software for scientists and engineers, created by Golden
Software, lnc., of Golden, Colorado USA.
ln units of horizontal measurement, i.e., feet or meters.
All grid cells shall have a uniform X-Y geometry.
t2
Groundwater Corrective Action Plan
December,2014
Revision 0
Part III
c) Chloroform Concentration Grid File - which will include both measured and
Surfer interpolated chloroform concentration data created by Step l.d of the
CPMC Method for the quarter of interest. This Surfer electronic output file shall
be submittedin2 different formats: l) Surfer v.8 GRD format and 2) ASCII XYZ
file format.
d) Chloroform Contour Map - which will include the Surfer generated quarterly
chloroform isoconcentration map produced by Step l.e of the CPMC Method.
This contour map will include appropriate chloroform isoconcentration lines for
groundwater concentrations both below and above 70 ugll. This map will be
submitted as a graphical plot in both paper and electronic (PDF) format.
e) Concentration GE 70 Grid File - including an electronic copy of the Surfer
generated grid math output file produced by Step 2 of the CPMC Method. This
information will be submitted in two different file formats: l) Surfer v.8 GRD
format; and 2) ASCII XYZ f:Je format for each quarter of interest. Data found in
these electronic files shall be equivalent to the Chloroform Concentration Grid
values, with the exception that all cell values less than 70 ugll will be replaced
with a "0" value via use of the Surfer Grid Math option and a text editor. In the
event that EFR uses some other method for this data replacement, EFR will
disclose and justifu this deviation in each quarterly report.
0 Intermediate Surfer Grid Files - as produced by Steps 3 through 6 of the CPMC
Method. These Surfer Grid files shall be generated using the same grid spacing,
physical area, and geometry as the Chloroform Concentration Grid and
Chloroform Concentration Map. All of the intermediate Surfer Grid files shall be
submitted in 2 different electronic formats: l) Surfer v.8 GRD file format, and2)
ASCII XYZflJe format; and shall include the following:
o Water Level Grid (Step 3) - to be generated by Surfer to produce
measured and interpolated water table elevations for each grid cell (in feet
above mean sea level [amsl]) in and around the White Mesa facility, for
the quarter of interest.
o Aquifer Base Grid (Step 4) - to be generated by Surfer to produce the
measured and interpolated elevations of the base of the shallow aquifer for
each grid cell (in feet amsl) in and around the White Mesa facility, for the
quarter of interest, and
o Saturated Thickness Grid (Step 6) - including a grid math Surfer output
file generated by subtracting the corresponding Aquifer Base Grid values
from the Water Level Grid values, to determine shallow aquifer thickness
in feet.
g) Calculated Groundwater Volume Grid (Step 7) - groundwater volume (in m3) is to
be calculated from the Step 6 aquifer thickness results (in feet) for each grid cell
by performing the following calculations for the quarter of interest: 1) unit
conversion of each cell's saturated thickness from feet to meters [a factor of
0.3048 m per footl, 2) multiplication of individual cell thickness by the uniform
13
Groundwater Corrective Action Plan
December,2014
Revision 0
Part III
cell area [a factor of 232.2349 t]1, and 3) local aquifer porosity (0.18). At EFR's
discretion, aquifer volume at each grid cell may be determined by multiplication
of the Step 6 Saturated Thickness Grid Z value result by a combined factor of
12.7413. EFR will provide the corresponding final Step 7 Surfer output grid file
in two different electronic formats: 1) Surfer v.8 GRD format md2) ASCII XYZ
file format.
h) Chloroform Plume Mass Grid (Steps 8A and B) - chloroform mass inside the
plume will be determined for each grid cell by using the Grid Math option of
Surfer and multiplying the corresponding final grid values from Step 7
(Groundwater Volume Grid) and Step 1.d (Chloroform Concentration Grid); to
yield Step 8A results for each grid cell in units of ug-m3/L. Thereafter, the Surfer
Grid Math option will be used again to convert the Step 8A results to units of
pounds (lb) bV multiplying each grid cell value by 2.208-6lb per ug-m'/L to yield
the final Step 88 results as the Chloroform Plume Mass Grid. EFR will submit
an electronic copy of this grid file in ASCII XYZ file format.
i) Sum of Chloroform Plume Mass (Step 9) - EFR will import the Chloroform
Plume Mass Grid from Step 88 into an Excel spreadsheet and sum the chloroform
mass (or "2" values). EFR will then submit an electronic copy of this Step 9
spreadsheet as part ofthe quarterly report.
3) Chloroform Plume Mass Time Series Data Graph - the quarterly report shall also
include both a running time series table and graph to summarize the quarterly
Chloroform Plume Mass reported under Step 9 of the CPMC Method to date. The
time series graph will be displayed as an appropriately scaled X-Y graph.
4) Operations and Maintenance of the Chloroform Pumping System - each quarterly
report will include:
o Average groundwater pumping rate and total water volume removed for
each Pumping Well during the quarter of interest.
o Total groundwater removed from the pumping well system to date (to the
extent historic data is available).
o Time series graph of total quarterly volume removed from each pumping
well over the entire life of pumping operations (to the extent historic data
is available).
o Identification and description of any maintenance and operation failure for
any well in the pumping system, including the initial date of failure, date
of correction, and the total duration.
5) All other GCAP activities as required in the ORDER.
6) Conclusions and Recommendations
7) Electronic copy of all field and laboratory results for all groundwater level, and
quality monitoring during the quarter, and all calculations performed thereon, in a
format approved by the Director.
t4
Groundwater Corrective Action Plan
December.20l4
C. Chloroform Corrective Action Reports Schedule -
EFR according to the following schedule:
Revision 0
Part III
these reports shall be submitted by
D.
E.
F.
G.
Quarter Period Due Date
First January - March June I
Second Aoril - June September I
Third Julv - Sentember December I
Fourth October - December March 1
Chloroform Plume Network Non-compliance Reporting - if at the time of submittal of
any quarterly report, EFR observes a failure of the chloroform monitoring network to
meet the performance standards of Part II.F, EFR will notifr the Director in writing at
the time of submittal of the quarterly report in question.
Compliance Monitoring Well Contaminant Excursion (Non-compliance) Reporting -
EFR shall complete the following:
1) Director Notification - If any contaminant in any Compliance Monitoring Well
exceeds its respective GCAL in Table 2 (Part I.G) in two consecutive quarterly
sampling events ("discovery"), EFR will provide an exceedance notice to the
Director with submittal of the next quarterly report, in accordance with Part II.H.1.
New Well Completion Reports (Pumping, Performance and Compliance Monitoring) -
within 60 calendar days after installation of any new well not found in Part I.B, Table lA
of this GCAP, EFR will submit a final well completion report for Director approval.
Said report shall satisff the requirements of Part I.F.6 of the Mill's Groundwater
Discharge Permit.
Submittal Deadlines for New Well Monitoring Results - EFR shall sample any new,
modified, or re-designated corrective action wells required (Pumping, Perforrnance
Monitoring, and/or Compliance Monitoring Wells), within 90 calendar days after well
installation, modification or such other schedule as approved by the Director, and shall
submit the results of groundwater sampling and analysis in the next regularly scheduled
quarterly report following receipt of all sample results.
Failure to perform such sampling or submit the required monitoring results, in whole or
in part, in accordance with the foregoing schedule shall constitute non-compliance.
Two-Year Corrective Action Comprehensive Monitoring Evaluation ("CACME") Report -
on or before March 3I, 2016, and every two-years thereafter, EFR shall submit a
comprehensive groundwater monitoring evaluation report for Director review and approval.
The purpose and content of this report shall:
l) Summarize and interpret the results of all past quarterly groundwater monitoring
performed after December 31, 2012in accordance with Parts IILA through E of this
GCAP;
H.
l5
Groundwater Corrective Action Plan
December,2014
Revision 0
Part III
2) Review chloroform mass removal rates resulting from pumping to evaluate the
performance of the Pumping Wells. In the event that the mass removal rates have
dropped substantially, such evaluation shall include a determination whether the
removal rates have dropped as a result of reduced concentrations within the plume,
lost well productivities or a general reduction in saturated thickness;
3) Demonstrate how and why this GCAP continues to be protective of public health and
the environment; and
4) Bear the seal of a Professional Engineef or Professional Geologist, pursuant to UAC
R3l7-6-6.15.D.3.
t6
Groundwater Corrective Action Plan
December,2014
PART IV. GENERAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Revision 0
Part IV
A. REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLING. Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring
requirements established under Part III shall be representative of the monitored activity.
B. ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES. Water sample analysis must be conducted according to test
procedures specified under UAC R3I7-6-6.3(L) unless other'test procedures have been
specified in advance by the Director.
C. PENALTIES FOR TAMPERING. The Act provides that any person who falsifies, tampers
with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any monitoring device or method required to be
maintained under this GCAP shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than
$10,000 per violation, or by imprisonment for not more than six months per violation, or by
both.
D. REPORTING OF MONITOzuNG RESULTS. Monitoring results obtained during reporting
periods specified in the GCAP, shall be submitted to the Director, Utah Division of Radiation
Control at the following address no later than the date specified following the completed
reporting period:
Attention: U-Mill Section
Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 144880
195 N. 1950 W.
Salt Lake city, utah 84114-4880
The quarterly due dates for reporting are: June 1, September l, December l, and March I .
E. ADDITIONAL MONITORING. If EFR monitors any pollutant more frequently than
required by this GCAP using approved test procedures as specified in this GCAP the results
of this monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting of the data submitted.
Such increased frequency shall also be reported'
F. RECORDS CONTENTS.
1) Records of monitoring information shall include:
a) The date, exact place and time of sampling, observations, or measurements;
b) The individual(s) who performed the sampling, observations, or measurements;
c) The date(s) and time(s) analyses were performed;
d) The name of the certified laboratory which performed the analyses;
e) The analytical techniques or methods used; and
0 The results of such analyses.
G. RETENTION OF RECORDS. EFR shall retain records of all monitoring information,
including all calibration and maintenance records and copies of all reports required by this
GCAP, and records of all data related thereto, for a period of at least five years from the date
t7
Groundwater Corrective Action Plan Revision 0
December, 2014 part IV
of the sample, measurement, report or application. This period may be extended by request of
the Director at any time.
H. NOTICE OF NONCOMPLIANCE REPORTING.
I.
l) EFR shall verbally report any noncompliance which may endanger public health or the
environment as soon as possible, but no later than 24-hours from the time EFR first
became aware of the circumstances. The report shall be made to the Utah Department of
Environmental Quality 24-hour number, (801) 538-6333, or to the Division of Waste
Management and Radiation Control at (801) 536-0200, during normal business hours
(8:00 am - 5:00 pm Mountain Time).
2) A written submission shall also be provided to the Director within five calendar days of
the time that EFR becomes aware of the circumstances. The written submission shall
contain:
a) A description of the noncompliance and its cause;
b) The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times;
c) The estimated time noncompliance is expected to continue if it has not been
corrected; and
d) Steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the
noncompliance.
3) Reports shall be submitted to the address in Part IV.D, Reporting of Monitoring Results.
OTHER NONCOMPLIANCE REPORTING. Instances of noncompliance not required to be
reported within five calendar days, shall be reported at the time that monitoring reports for
Part III are submitted.
INSPECTION AND ENTRY. EFR shall allow the Director, or an authorized representative,
upon the presentation of credentials and other documents as may be required by law, to:
l) Enter upon the premises where a regulated facility or activity is located or conducted, or
where records must be kept under the conditions of the GCAp;
2) Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must be kept under the
conditions of this GCAP;
3) lnspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including monitoring and control
equipment), practices, or operations regulated or required under this GCAP; and
4) Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purpose of assuring compliance or as
otherwise authorized by the Act, any substances or parameters that are subject to this
GCAP, at any location.
J.
18
Groundwater Corrective Action Plan
December,2014
PART V. COMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITIES
Revision 0
Part V
A. DUTY TO COMPLY. EFR must comply with all conditions of this oRDER/GCAP. Any
noncompliance constitutes a violation of the ACT and is grounds for enforcement action, re-
issuance, or modification. EFR shall give advance notice to the Director of any planned
changes in the permitted facility or activity which may result in noncompliance with GCAP
requirements.
B. PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF ORDER/GCAP CONDITIONS. The ACT provides
that a person who violates an ORDER/GCAP condition implementing provisions of the ACT
is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 per day for each day of violation. A person
who with criminal negligence violates an ORDER/GCAP condition is subject to a fine not
exceeding $25,000 per day for each day of violation. A person who knowingly violates
ORDER/GCAP condition is subject to a fine not exceeding $50,000 per day for each day of
violation. Nothing in this ORDER/GCAP shall be construed to relieve EFR of the civil or
criminal penalties for noncompliance.
C. NEED TO HALT OR REDUCE ACTIVITY NOT A DEFENSE. It ShAII NOt bE A dEfENSE fOr
EFR in an enforcement action that it would have been necessary to halt or reduce the
required activity in order to maintain compliance with the conditions of this GCAP.
D. PROPER OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. EFR shall at all times properly operate and
maintain all facilities and systems of groundwater treatment and control (and related
appurtenances) which are installed or used at the facility to achieve compliance with the
conditions of this GCAP. Proper operation and maintenance also includes adequate
laboratory controls and quality assurance procedures. This provision requires the operation
of back-up or auxiliary facilities or similar systems which are installed by EFR only when
the operation is necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of the GCAP.
l9
Groundwater Corrective Action Plan
December.2014
Revision 0
Part VI
PART VI. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
A. Pr-eNNpD CHANGES. EFR shall give a minimum 90-day wriffen notice to the Director of any
planned physical alterations or additions to the groundwater corrective action monitoring,
capture, and treatment works required by this GCAP. 90-day notice is also required when
the alteration or addition could significantly change the nature or performance of the
groundwater corrective action activities, or decrease the degree or effectiveness of hydraulic
and/or groundwater contaminant control in the shallow aquifer.
B. ANTIcIPATED NoNcovpt-tANcE. {,[R shall give at least 30 days advance written notice of
any planned changes in the groundwater corrective action monitoring, capture, treatment
works or activity which may result in noncompliance with GCAP requirements.
C. GCAP AcrloNs. The GCAP may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated for cause.
The filing of a written request by EFR for a modification, revocation and re-issuance,
termination, or a notification of planned changes or anticipated noncompliance, does not stay
any GCAP condition or requirement.
D. Durv ro PRovlDE INFoRMAIoN. EFR shall furnish to the Director, within 30 calendar days,
any information which the Director may request in writing to determine whether cause exists
for modifuing, revoking and reissuing, or terminating this GCAP or to determine compliance
with this GCAP. EFR shall also furnish to the Director, upon request, copies of iecords
required to be kept by this GCAP.
E. OrHen InponvetloN. When EFR becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant facts,
or submitted incorrect information in any report to the Director, it shall promptly submit such
facts or information, not later than 30 calendar days after discovery thereof.
F. StcNatoRv REqutnevENTS. All applications, reports or information submitted to the
Director shall be signed and certified.
l) All reports required by the GCAP and other information requested by the Director shall
be signed by a responsible corporate officer or by a duly authorized representative of thatperson. A person is a duly authorized representative only if:
a) The authorization is made in writing by a responsible corporate officer and submitted
to the Director; and
b) The authorization specified either an individual or a position having responsibility for
the overall operation of the regulated facility or activity, such as the position of plant
manager, operator of a well or a well field, superintendent, position of equivalentresponsibility, or an individual or position having overall responsibility for
environmental matters for the company. (A duly authorized represeniative may thus
be either a named individual or any individual occupying u nurned position).
2) Changes to Authorization. If an authonzation under Part VI.F.I is no longer accurate
because a different individual or position has responsibility for the overall operation ofthe facility, a new authorization satisfying the requirements of Part VI.F.I must be
20
Groundwater Corrective Action Plan
December.2014
Revision 0
Part VI
G.
submitted to the Director prior to or together with any reports, information, or
applications to be signed by an authorized representative.
3) Certification. Any person signing a document under this section shall make the following
certification:
I certif under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared
under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that
qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on
my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly
responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of
my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine
and imprisonment for knowing violations.
PeNet.tles FoR FALSIFICATIoN oF REnoRTS. The ACT provides that any person who
knowingly makes any false statement, representation, or certification in any record or other
document submitted or required to be maintained under this ORDER/GCAP, including
monitoring reports or reports of compliance or noncompliance shall, upon conviction be
punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 per violation, or by imprisonment for not more
than six months per violation, or by both.
AvRtlastLtrY oF Reponrs. Except for data determined to be confidential by EFR, all
reports prepared in accordance with the terms of this ORDER/GCAP shall be available for
public inspection at the offices of the Director. As required by the ACT, permit applications,
permits, effluent data and groundwater quality data shall not be considered confidential.
PnoppRrv fucHrs. The issuance of this ORDER/GCAP does not convey any property rights
of any sort, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to private property or
any invasion of personal rights, nor any infringement of federal, state or local laws or
regulations.
SpvpRRstt-trv. The provisions of this ORDER/GCAP are severable, and if any provision of
this GCAP, or the application of any provision of this ORDER/GCAP to any circumstance, is
held invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances, and the remainder of
this ORDER/GCAP, shall not be affected thereby.
TReNsrEns. This ORDER/GCAP may be automatically transferred to a new facility
owner/operator if:
l) EFR notifies the Director at least 30 calendar days in advance in writing of the proposed
transfer date; and
2) The notice includes a written agreement between EFR and the new facility
owner/operator containing a specific date for transfer of GCAP responsibility, coverage,
and liability between them.
I.
H.
J.
K.
2l
Groundwater Corrective Action Plan
December,2014
Revision 0
Part VI
L. Srere Lews. Nothing in this GCAP shall be construed to preclude the institution of any
legal action or relieve EFR from any responsibilities, liabilities, penalties established
pursuant to any applicable state law or regulation under authority preserved by Section 19-5-
I l5 of the ACT.
M. Reopener Provision. The Director may modiff this GCAP (following proper administrative
procedures) to include appropriate limitations, requirements or compliance schedules, if
necessary, if one or more of the following events occur:
I ) If new groundwater quality standards relating to the contaminants subject to this GCAP
are adopted by the Board;
2) Determination of any new chloroform contaminant source term at the White Mesa
facility, beyond those accepted by the Director as of December 1,2014, namely: l) the
EFR Scale House Septic Tank Drainfield, and 2) EFR Administration Building Septic
Tank Drainfield;
3) The Director determines a modification is needed to protect human health or the
environment;
4) The Board approves alternate corrective action concentration limits under UAC R3l7-6-
6.15.G; and,
5) If it appears that the groundwater remediation strategy described in this ORDER/GCAP,
or any performance thereunder by EFR, does not appear to be protective of public health
and the environment, the Director may require EFR to determine other ways to achieve
compliance.
22
Groundwater Corrective Action Plan
December.2014
Revision 0
Appendix A
APPENDIX A
Chloroform Groundwater Plume
Mass Calculation Method
OCTOBER 20I4
23
r)
Procedure for estimating chloroform plume mass
October,2014
Using Surfer software (any Windows version should work - version 8 will be
used initially) t grid (krige) chloroform data using a uniform 15.24 meter (50-
foot) spacing. (Note: site well locations are in UTM meters, and elevations in feet
amsl.)
a) Using the laboratory reported chloroform concentration data for the
quarter in question, transform each laboratory result to a log equivalent
value, and include both the original laboratory result and log equivalent in
the quarterly report ". Data from all wells routinely sampled for
chloroform will be used. This includes att tW+-series wells and all non-
dry MW-series wells (except MW-34). Chloroform concentrations in all
sampled MW-series wells (except MW-4 and MW-26) are typically non-
detect (< I ug/L) because they are located up-gradient, cross-gradient, and
downgradient of the plume. MW-4 and MW-26 have detectable
concentrations greater than 70 ug/L because they are within the plume. All
non-dry MW-series wells (except MW-34) are sampled during the second
and fourth quarters. However, only a portion of the MW-series wells are
sampled during the first and third quarters.
To ensure that the same number of data points is used in each quarter's
calculation, if a particular MW-series well was not sampled for
chloroform during the quarter of interest, the previous quarter's
chloroform value will be used in the gridding process, whether it is a
detectable concentration (> 1 ug/l) or not. These substitutions will occur
during the first and third quarters when not all MW-series wells are
sampled for chloroform. Substituting the previous quarter's value for wells
not sampled during the quarter of interest is appropriate because 1) in most
cases the substitutions will apply to historically non-detect wells distant
from the plume, 2) the substituted values will represent real data from the
previous quarter, and 3) the substitutions will eliminate the need to pre-
select the wells that will be used in the gridding process, and as noted
above, ensure that the same number of data points is used in each quarter's
calculation. In each quarterly report covering the first and third quarters,
EFR will identify in the text and on the relevant chloroform maps each
well where previous quarter concentration substitutions have been made.
In all quarterly reporting, EFR will disclose all Surfer software settings and algorithms used to produce
each map.
As a part of each quarterly report, EFR will provide a Surfer data input file (or spreadsheet), that will
include the following information for each well: name or identity, 'x'-location, 'y'-location, laboratory
reported concentration in ug/L (or'z' value), and corresponding log transformed 'z' value.
Page I
All non-detects will be assigned a value equal to 507o of the laboratory
reporting limit for the given quarter, well, and sample in question in ug/L.
The non-detect value will typically be 0.5 ug/L.
choose a grid area sufficient to encompass the entire chloroform plume
(Note: because data used in the gridding process will not be restricted to
the gridded area, but extend significantly beyond (outside) the 70 ug/l
chloroform isoconcentration area, "boundary effects" will not be a
concern).
Following Step 1.a, use the dbfault Surfer settings for kriging (unlimited
isotropic search, all available laboratory data points, point kriging,
omnidirectional variogram, no nugget effect, linear variogram model,
etc.), krige the logged values of the reported chloroform concentrations,
and generate a Surfer grid output file'.
d) Back-transform the data in the Surfer output grid file to restore the
concentrations in units of ug/l by taking the antilog of each kriged cell
value. This back-transformed data constitutes the "Chloroform
Concentration Grid" (in ugl[-). In each quarterly report, EFR will provide
an electronic copy of the Chloroform Concentration Grid in two different
Surfer generated formats: 1) Surfer, version 8 (v.8) GS ASCII (.grd) grid
file formar and2) ASCII XyZ (.dat) data file formar.
e) EFR will then use Surfer to plot the Chloroform Concentration Grid as a
contour map (hereafter "Chloroform Contour Mup") for the quarter in
question, using the same data, grid spacing, and Surfer krige function
settings. The areal extent of the Chloroform Concentration Grid may be
smaller than that used to generate the quarterly "Chloroform Contour
Map" for the convenience of using grids no larger than necessary to
perform the mass calculations. (Because data used in producing either
mass calculation grids or Quarterly Chloroform Contour Map grids will
not be restricted to the full or complete gridded areas, and the same data
will be used, contour maps produced using the larger or smaller gridded
areas will be essentially identical) The Chloroform Contour Map will
continue to be reported to DRC as part of each quarterly monitoring
report.
2) Create a 'Concentration GE 70 Grid' by mathematically transforming the original
Chloroform Concentration Grid values, from Step l.d, such that a value of zero is
assigned to all grid cells that have a chloroform concentration less than 70 ue/L.
The interim Surfer output file or grid will consist of a 2-dimensional (x-y locations) kriged
interpolation of the original laboratory concentration results (z-values) expressed in equivalent log
notation.
b)
c)
Page 2
This may be done by several methods, including using a FORTRAN program.
One method is outlined below:
a) use the Surfer 'max' grid math function as follows:
c=max(a,69.999), where a is the input grid file (Chloroform
Concentration Grid), c is the output grid file, and '69.999' is the
constant that will be assigned to all grid cells less than or equal to
69.999 ug/I. Specify output grid file c to have Surfer GS ASCI (.grd)
grid file format.
b) using a text editor, globally replace all values of '69.999' in the
ascii format output grid with '0' and save under a new grid file name.
All grid cells outside the plume in this grid will have a concentration
of zero. This grid will be the 'Concentration GE 70 Grid'. In each
quarterly report, EFR will provide an electronic copy of the final
Concentration GE 70 Grid produced by Step 2 in two different Surfer
generated formats: l) Surfer v.8 (.grd) grid file format and2) ASCII
XYZ (.dat) data file format.
If EFR uses other methods to generate the Concentration GE 70 Grid, this will be
disclosed and justified in each quarterly report, and subject to Director approval.
EFR will then use Surfer to generate an isoconcentration map from the final
Concentration GE 70 Grid (hereafter Concentration GE 70 Map), at the same
scale and for the same physical area and geometry as the Chloroform
Concentration Map (from Step l), and include both maps in the quarterly report.
In the event the Director requests these 2 maps for a given quarter be plotted at a
different scale, EFR will provide the re-plotted maps within l5 calendar days of
written Director request.
The Concentration GE 70 Map will be generated for quality control purposes, to
ensure that no errors were made in mathematically transforming the Chloroform
Concentration Grid to the Concentration GE 70 Grid. The Concentration GE 70
Map will not be representative of the chloroform plume because it will slightly
underestimate the area of the plume, owing to the fact that chloroform
concentrations in all grid cells outside the plume have been set to zero (which is
necessary to ensure that the mass estimate based on this grid represents only the
mass of chloroform inside the plume). Setting all grid values outside the plume to
zero will cause the position of the bounding 70 uglL contour line drawn by Surfer
to move slightly inward, making the plume area to appear slightly smaller than it
actually is, because the position of the line depends on grid values both inside and
outside the plume. However, this is an artifact of the grid transformation and
contouring procedure, and does not mean that the mass of the plume will be
underestimated. Visual inspection will be used to confirm that the Chloroform
Concentration Map and Concentration GE 70 Map are similar except for the fact
that the plume area will be slightly smaller in the Concentration GE 70 Map. If
Page 3
significant differences other than the above are noted, the Concentration GE 70
Grid will be checked for errors.
Using Surfer, EFR will grid (krige) the shallow (perched) aquifer water level
elevations on the same 15.24 meter (50-foot) centers to produce a perched water
level grid (hereafter Water Level Grid) a. [n each quarterly repoft, EFR will
provide an electronic copy of the Water Level Grid in 2 different Surfer generated
formats: 1) Surfer v.8 (.grd) grid file format, and2) ASCII XYZ (.dat) data file
format.
Using Surfer, EFR will grid (krige) the top of Brushy Basin elevations on the
same 15.24 meter (50-foot) centers to produce a ggd representing the base of the
perched water zone (hereafter Aquifer Base Grid)'. In each quarterly report, EFR
will provide an electronic copy of the Aquifer Base Grid in 2 different Surfer
generated formats: l) Surfer v.8 (.grd) grid file format, and2) ASCII XYZ (.dat)
data file format.
EFR will ensure that both the Water Level Grid and Aquifer Base Grid have the
same x-y grid limits, number of cells (including both rows and columns), uniform
cell areas, and same area and geometry.
EFR will subtract the top of Aquifer Base Grid from the Water Level Grid to get
the Saturated Thickness Grid in feet (ft). In each quarterly report, EFR will
provide an electronic copy of the Saturated Thickness Grid in 2 different Surfer
generated formats: 1) Surfer v.8 (.grd) grid file format, and 2) ASCII XYZ (.dat)
data file format.
EFR will multiply each cell in the Saturated Thickness Grid (in f0 by 0.3048 to
get saturated thickness in meters, then by the uniform grid cell area
(approximately 232.2349 m27 determined in,step 1, and the porosity (0.18) to get
the Groundwater Volume Grid in units of m'. Alternatively, EFR may make
these 3 conversions in a single operation using the Surfer Grid Math option, by
multiplying each Step 6 grid cell result by a combined equivalent factor of
12.7413. In each quarterly report, EFR will provide an electronic copy of the
"Groundwater Volume Grid" generated by the Surfer Grid Math option in 2
different formats: 1) Surfer v.8 (.grd) grid file format and 2) ASCII XYZ (.dat)
data file format.
EFR will Multiply each cell in the Groundwater Volume Grid (in m3; from Step 7
by the corresponding cell in the Concentration GE 70 Grid (from Step 1), using
the Grid Math option of Surfer, and yielding results in units of ug-m'll- (hereafter
' To support the water table elevation grid / contour map, EFR will provide a Surfer input file that
includes the following well information: name or identity, 'x'-location, 'y'-location, and elevation ('z
value). Similar to Step 1.a, if EFR elects to substitute of any individual well water level elevation,
- with that of a previous quarterly measurement, this will be fully disclosed in each quarterly report.
' To support the Brushy Basin elevation grid / contour map, EFR will provide a Surfer input file that
includes the following well / boring information: name or identity, 'x'-location, 'y'-location, and
elevation ('z' value).
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
Page 4
Step 8A). Subsequently, the Surfer Grid Math option will be used again to
multiply each grid cell result by 2.2 x l0-o (lb per ug-m'/L) to produce the
Chloroform Plume Mass Grid values in pounds (lb) [hereafter Step 88]. In each
quarterly report, EFR will provide an electronic copy of the final Step 88
Chloroform Plume Mass Grid in 2 different Surfer generated formats: l) Surfer
v.8 (.grd) grid file format, and2) ASCII XYZ (.dat) data file format. [Note: I
ug-m'lL x 1000 lJm3 x | 9rc6 ugxlbl454l=2.2026 x 10-6lbl EFR will provide
all conversion factors used in these calculations as part of the quarterly report to
DRC. Because all grid cells outside the plume boundary in the Concentration GE
70 Grid will be zero (as noted above), the Chloroform Plume Mass Grid will have
masses of zero assigned to all cells outside the plume boundary.
9) EFR will import the final Chloroform Plume Mass Grid file, from Step 88, in
ASCII XYZ (.dat) data file format into an Excel spreadsheet, EFR will then sum
the masses ("2" values) of each cell in the "Chloroform Plume Mass Grid" from
Step 88 to get the total chloroform mass inside the 70 ug/L plume contour
boundary for the quarter of interest.
NOTE: The gridding procedures described above are essentially identical to those used to
make quarterly concentration and water level contour maps, except that in the above
procedure the gridded areas and grid cell dimensions are identical for water level, Brushy
Basin, and concentration grids, to allow mathematical operations between grids, and the
gridded areas may be smaller for the convenience of using grids no larger than needed to
perform the mass calculations. (As discussed above, because all data used in producing
either mass calculation grids or Quarterly Chloroform Contour Map grids will not be
restricted to the gridded areas, and the same data will be used, contour maps produced
using the larger or smaller gridded areas will be essentially identical). Furthermore,
'pseudo data points' will not be added to the data sets to control the gridding processes.
Page 5
Public Participation Summary
September 2015
Public Participation Summary
Stipulation and Consent Order, Docket No. URW20-01-SCO
Chloroform Plume Remediation Groundwater Corrective Action Plan
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
White Mesa Uranium Mill
San Juan County, Utah
September 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Public Comments
Celene Hawkins (Associate GeneralCounsel, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe): Pages2-4
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Public Comments regarding the Chloroform Plume Remediation Groundwater
Corrective Action Plan
Public Participation Summary
September 2015
lntroduction
The purpose of this document is to summarize public comments received by the Utah Division of Waste
Management and Radiation Controlr (DWMRC) regarding the Stipulation and Consent Order, Docket
No. URW20-01-SCO Chloroform Plume Remediation Groundwater Corrective Action Plan (Order) for
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. (EFR) Uranium Mill facility near Blanding, Utah. One set of written
comments was received from the public during the comment period that ended on February 13,2015 (see
Attachment I ). There were no oral public comments received during a public meeting held on February
I I , 20l 5 in Blanding, Utah. Each of the comments is in italics, followed by a DWMRC response. The
DWMRC responses have been numbered for reference purposes.
Comments from Celpne Hawkins, Associate General Counsel, Ute Mountain
Ute Tribe, submitted on February 11' 2015.
Re; Comntents on White Mesa Uranium Mill Chloroform Corrective Action Plan, UGIlr20-01-
sco
Dear Mr. Lundberg:
The tlte Mountain Ute Tribe ("Tribe") submits the following comments regarding the above-noted
Stipulation and Consent Order ("SCO") and Corrective Action Plan ("CAP"). Infurtherance of
government-to-government consultation, the Tribe appreciated the opportunity to have Tribal staff
discttss the Order and the CAP with Division of Radiation Control ("DRC") in December 2014 ("2014
Conference Call") prior to publishing the SCO and CAP for public comment. These comments cover the
Tribe's two remaining concerns with the SCO and CAP (providing a summctry of the concern and a
request for revisions for each concern).
1. Disposal of Extracted Groandwater
a. Sttmmarv of the Concern
During the 2014 Conference Call, the Tribe expressed concern that the September 2014 version of the
Stqtement of Basis required Energy Fuels Resources, Inc. ("EFR") to place extracted groundwater into
Tailings Cell 1. The Tribe informed DRC that the Tribe had concerns about the placement of chloroform-
laden, extracted groundwater into Tailings Cell I (or into the Mill process) because of the risk that the
chloroform-laden, extracted groundwater posed to the single, 30-mil PVC liner system in Tailings Cell 1.
The Tribe requested that DRC reqtrire EFR to dispose of the extracted groundwater into Tailings Cell 4b
(the other liquid disposal cell at the White Mesa Mill).
The DRC amended the provision in the Statement of Basis so the December 2014 Statement of Basis and
the SCO now require EFR to dispose of the extracted groundwater in the Mill's tailings management
system (or into the Mill process). This revision allows EFR to dispose of the extracted groundwater into
any of the cells that comprise the tailings management system (which allows EFR to dispose of the
' During the 2015 Utah Legislature Session, a bill was passed (Senate Bill 2015) that consolidated the Division of
Radiation Control with the Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste to form the Utah Division of Waste Management
and Radiation Control. Effective July l, 201 5, pursuant to Utah Code Ann. $$ l9- I - 105( I Xd) and l9-5- 102(6), the
authority granted to the Director of the Division of Radiation Control was transferred to the Director of the newly
created Division of Waste Manasement and Radiation Control .
Public Participation Summary
September 2015
extracted groundwater into Cell 4b, but also still allows EFR to dispose of the extracted groundwater into
Tailings Cell I or into the Mill process).
The Tribe remains concerned that the SCO continues to allow EFR to dispose of chloroform-laden,
extracted groundwater into Tailings Cell I (or into the Mill process, where the water may eventually end
up in Tailings Cell l). The Statement of Basis does not address whether the low-pH extracted
groundwater containing chloroform and the other associated chlorinated compounds, carbon
tetrachloride, dichloromethane (methylene chloride), and chloromethane (all of 2 which are on the RCM
U-List) is compatible with the liner systems of the Cells, and in particular the PVC liner of Cell l. As the
Tribe documented to DRC in December of 2011 (in its public comments on the White Mesa Mill's draft
Radioactive Materials License Renewal), thin PVC liners like the one installed under Tailings Celll are
incompatible with liquid with acidic pH or organic solvents (including chloroform and the other
chlorinated chemicals). See December 16, 201lComments on Radioactive Materials License Renewal
DRC-045, Exhibit F (June 27, 2000 Memo to Dane Finerfrockl (finding that the 30-mil PVC membrane
in Cell I was prone to excess leakage because of leaching of plasticizer compounds and organic chemical
attack); Exhibit H (RRD Letter) (providing afull explanation of the incompatibility of thin PVC liners
with low-pH liquids and organic solvents). For example, methylene chloride is commonly used as a
solvent for PVC. In light of these concerns, the Tribe believes that the extracted groundwater should not
be disposed in Tailings Cell I and should only be disposed in an impoundment that has a liner resistant to
the chlorinated chemicals and meets current RCM design standards.
b. Requested Revisions
The Tribe reqttests that DRC revise the SCO (Attachment l, page 5) and the Statement of Basis torequire
EFR to place the extracted groundwater from the pumping wells into (only) Tailings Cell 4b.
DWMRC Response #1:
It is highly unlikely that the PVC liner in Cell I will be degraded by chloroform in the CAP extracted
groundwater. This is based on several factors: l) The relatively low concentrations of chloroform in the
extracted groundwater; 2) Chloroform is essentially immiscible in water; and 3) The additional dilution
and evaporation of chloroform when discharged to Cell L Any chloroform not previously removed by
contact with the atmosphere and agitation while transferring the extracted groundwater to Cell I will float
and evaporate quickly from the Cell I liquid surface. Additionally, the Cell I construction includes a foot
thick soil layer overlying the PVC liner; this layer prevents contact of the pond liquids with the PVC
liner.
Potentialseepage from the tailings impoundments was discussed in the 2008 University of Utah Report,
which determined, based on study evidence that leakage and transport of Cell I fluids to the water table
had not occurred. Because the Leak Detection System (LDS) at Tailings Cells I ,2, and 3 are not sensitive
to detect all potential cell leakage, the Director required EFR to install eight new monitoring wells
immediately adjacent to these tailings cells. These monitoring wells are the "first line of defense" to
detect cell leakage. The monitoring wells were installed in 2005 and are routinely sampled quarterly or
semi-annually by EFR for a broad range of chemical and radiological analytes. To date, no evidence of
leakage has appeared in any of the eight monitoring wells. If detection of any leakage from Cell I or any
of the Tailing Cells occurs in the monitoring wells, enforcement action will be taken in accordance with
EFR Groundwater Quality Discharge Permit (Permit) requirements and Water Quality rules. No change
will be made to the Order.
Public Participation Summary
September 2015
2. Potentialfor Hyttraulic Captare of Tailings Cell Leachate, Masking of Tailings Cell Leakage, and
Interference with Other Investigations and Corrective Action Plans
a. Summary of Concern
During the 2014 Conference Call, the Tribe expressed concern to the DRC that the expanded (eastward)
pumping network and limited Groundwater Monitoring Quality Assurance Plan (which only requires
groundwater analysis for the 6 GCALs in Table 2, SCO (Attachment I, Page 3) and chloride, SCO
(Attachment 1, page I0)) could result in the hydraulic capture of Tailings Cell leachate, the masking of
tailings cell leakage, and interference with other ongoing investigations or corrective action plans. The
Tribe explained that, because the t 3 pumping wells for this SCO will be operated in the eastern portion of
the WMM facility, it is possible that the chloroform pumping wells could pull or hydraulically "capture"
leakage .from the tailings cells towards the eastern portion of the WMM facility. Because there are no
point o/'compliance wells for the tailings management system between the legacy tailings impoundments
and the proposed chloroform pumping well network, and because DRC is only requiring EFR to monitor
for the 6 GCALs and chloride (instead of the full parameter list in Table 2 of the facility's Groundwater
Permit that would altow DRC to more easily detect tailings cell leachate in the chloroform pumping
wells), it is possible that the operation of the chloroform pumping well network will mask tailings cell
leakage and complicate other investigations and corrective action plans.
The DRC did not disagree with the Tribe's concerns about hydraulic capture and masking or
complicating the identification of potential tailings cell leakage, but suggested that the DRC could
consider requiring monitoring for the full suite of parameters in Table 2 of the facility's Groundwater
Permit as part of the White Mesa Mill's Radioactive Materials License renewal. The Tribe appreciates
the DRC 's willingness to consider the Tribe's request in other permit and license renewal processes.
However, the Tribe continues to believe that it would be appropriate for the DRC to modify this SCO to
prevent the chloroform pumping program from masking potential tailings cell inJluence or interfering
v;ith other groundwater remediation efforts. The Tribe believes that requiring EFR to collect a complete
analytical suite at for certqin wells will allow for early detection of potential tailings cell influence in the
groundwater, for improved quality assurance, andfor sfficient geochemical characterization of
groundwater in these areas.
b. Requested Revisions
The Tribe requests that DRC modifu the SCO to require the following:
o Monitoring wells located east of the legacy tailings impoundments and completed in areas
subject to multiple corrective action plans (such as TW4-22, TW4-24, and TW4-25) will be
sampled and analyzed for the full parameler list in Table 2 of the Groundwater Permit at a
frequency ofno less thqn once per year.
o Compliance monitoringwells subject to Part H of Attachment I the SCO, "Compliance
Monitoring Well Chloroform Excursion Requirements" which have exhibited two
consecutive exceedences of their GCAL concentration limits will be sampled and analyzed
for the futl parameter list in Table 2 of the Groundwater Permit at a frequency of no less
than once per year in addition to the other requirements in Part H.
o Monitoring wells located within 500 feet of the White Mesa Mill's property boundary will
be sampled and analyzedfor the full parameter list in Table 2 of the Groundwater Permit at
afrequency ofno less than once per year.
Public Participation Summary
September 2015
DRC Response #2:
As part of the approved chloroform corrective action plan, EFR is required to analyze the groundwater
flow directions and chloroform capture zones on a quarterly basis. This analysis is to ensure full
hydraulic capture of the chloroform plume, but also serves to analyze impacts to the local groundwater
flow directions.
If a tailings cell were to breach and discharge solution into the groundwater and if that discharged
solution was then transported eastward toward the chloroform extraction project (due to the extraction
wells), any contamination potentially diverted in that direction would be captured by the chloroform
extraction wells. After being captured by the chloroform extraction wells, it would then be discharged
either into the milling process or tailings cells.
These issues will be best addressed after DWMRC completes the review of the EFR Permit Renewal
Application in 2015. A DWMRC evaluation of potential contaminant path lines will be conducted at that
time to determine if it is appropriate to require monitoring of a full suite of compliance parameters at all
or any of the chloroform groundwater wells. When this Renewal Application is completed, a public
comment period and a public meeting will be held to give the public a chance to comment on the
proposed Permit modifications and the Tribe is welcome to bring up its concerns regarding this issue at
that time. No change will be made to the Order.
Additional DRC Permit Modifications Since Close of Public Comment Period
After the public comment period, the DWMRC made additional modifications to the Chloroform CAP.
During the 2015 Utah Legislature Session, a bill was passed (Senate Bill 2015) that consolidated the
Division of Radiation Control with the Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste to form the Utah Division
of Waste Management and Radiation Control. The changes to the Chloroform CAP are a direct result of
the consolidation as references to the Division of Radiation Control have been changed to the Utah
Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control. These new modifications are considered minor;
therefore, no new public comment period was necessary.
Public Participation Summary
September 2015
References
Hurst, T.G. and D.K. Solomon, May, 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," unpublished report by the University of Utah Department of Geology
and Geophysics, 62 pp. [transmitted via 5/18/08 email from Kip Solomon to Loren Morton (DRC)].
Public Participation Summary
September 2015
Attachment 1
Public Comments regarding the
Chloroform Plume Remediation Groundwater Corrective Action Plan
February ll,2015
Rusty Lundberg
Director
Utah Division of Radiation Control
P.O. Box 144850
Salt Lake City, Utah 841l4
radpublic@utah.gov
SUBMITTED VIA EMAIL
Re: Comments on White Mesa Uranium Mill Chloroform Corrective Action Plan. UGW20-01-
SCO
Dear Mr. Lundberg:
The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe ("Tribe") submits the following comments regarding the
above-noted Stipulation and Consent Order ("SCO") and Corrective Action Plan ("CAP"). In
furtherance of government-to-government consultation, the Tribe appreciated the opportunity to
have Tribal staff discuss the Order and the CAP with Division of Radiation Control ("DRC") in
December 2014 ("2014 Conference Call") prior to publishing the SCO and CAP for public
comment. These comments cover the Tribe's two remaining concerns with the SCO and CAP
(providing a summary of the concem and a request for revisions for each concern).
1. Disposal of Extracted Groundwater
a. Summary of the Concern
During the 2014 Conference Call, the Tribe expressed concern that the September 20l4
version of the Statement of Basis required Energy Fuels Resources, Inc. ("EFR") to place extracted
groundwater into Tailings Cell 1. The Tribe informed DRC that the Tribe had concerns about the
placement of chloroform-laden, extracted groundwater into Tailings Cell I (or into the Mill process)
because of the risk that the chloroform-laden, extracted groundwater posed to the single, 30-mil
PVC liner system in Tailings Cell 1. The Tribe requested that DRC require EFR to dispose of the
extracted groundwater into Tailings Cell 4b (the other liquid disposal cell at the White Mesa Mill).
The DRC amended the provision in the Statement of Basis so the December 2014 Statement
of Basis and the SCO now require EFR to dispose of the extracted groundwater in the Mill's tailings
management system (or into the Mill process). This revision allows EFR to dispose of the extracted
groundwater into any of the cells that comprise the tailings management system (which allows EFR
to dispose of the extracted groundwater into Cell 4b, but also still allows EFR to dispose of the
extracted groundwater into Tailings Cell I or into the Mill process).
The Tribe remains concerned that the SCO continues to allow EFR to dispose of
chloroform-laden, extracted groundwater into Tailings Cell I (or into the Mill process, where the
water may eventually end up in Tailings Cell I ). The Statement of Basis does not address whether
the low-pH extracted groundwater containing chloroform and the other associated chlorinated
compounds, carbon tetrachloride, dichloromethane (methylene chloride), and chloromethane (all of
l
)
a.
which are on the RCRA U-List) is compatible with the liner systems of the Cells, and in particular
the PVC liner of Cell I . As the Tribe documented to DRC in December of 201 I (in its public
comments on the White Mesa Mill's draft Radioactive Materials License Renewal), thin PVC liners
like the one installed under Tailings Celll are incompatible with liquid with acidic pH or organic
solvents (including chloroform and the other chlorinated chemicals). See December 16, 201 I
Comments on Radioactive Materials License Renewal DRC-045, Exhibit F (June 27,2000 Memo to
Dane Finerfrock) (finding that the 30-mil PVC membrane in Cell I was prone to excess leakage
because of leaching of plasticizer compounds and organic chemical attack); Exhibit H (RRD Letter)
(providing a full explanation of the incompatibility of thin PVC liners with low-pH liquids and
organic solvents). For example, methylene chloride is commonly used as a solvent for PVC. In
light of these concerns, the Tribe believes that the extracted groundwater should not be disposed in
Tailings Cell I and should only be disposed in an impoundment that has a liner resistant to the
chlorinated chemicals and meets current RCRA desien standards.
b. Requested Revisions
The Tribe requests that DRC revise the SCO (Attachment l, page 5) and the Statement of
Basis to require EFR to place the extracted groundwater from the pumping wells into (only)
Tailings Cell 4b.
Potential for Hydraulic Capture of Tailings Cell Leachate, Masking of Tailings Cell
Leakage, and Interference with Other Investigations and Corrective Action Plans
Summarv of Concern
During the 2014 Conference Call, the Tribe expressed concern to the DRC that the expanded
(eastward) pumping network and limited Groundwater Monitoring Quality Assurance Plan (which
only requires groundwater analysis for the 6 GCALs in Table 2, SCO (Attachment l, Page 3) and
chloride, SCO (Attachment l, page l0)) could result in the hydraulic capture of Tailings Cell
leachate, the masking of tailings cell leakage, and interference with other ongoing investigations or
corrective action plans. The Tribe explained that, because the l3 pumping wells for this SCO will
be operated in the eastern portion of the WMM facility, it is possible that the chloroform pumping
wells could pull or hydraulically "capture" leakage from the tailings cells towards the eastern
portion of the WMM facility. Because there are no point of compliance wells for the tailings
management system between the legacy tailings impoundments and the proposed chloroform
pumping well network, and because DRC is only requiring EFR to monitor for the 6 GCALs and
chloride (instead of the full parameter list in Table 2 of the facility's Groundwater Permit that
would allow DRC to more easily detect tailings cell leachate in the chloroform pumping wells), it is
possible that the operation of the chloroform pumping well network will mask tailings cell leakage
and complicate other investigations and corrective action plans.
The DRC did not disagree with the Tribe's concerns about hydraulic capture and masking or
complicating the identification of potential tailings cell leakage, but suggested that the DRC could
consider requiring monitoring for the full suite of parameters in Table 2 of the facility's
Groundwater Permit as part of the White Mesa Mill's Radioactive Materials License renewal. The
Tribe appreciates the DRC's willingness to consider the Tribe's request in other permit and license
renewal processes. However, the Tribe continues to believe that it would be appropriate for the
DRC to modify this SCO to prevent the chloroform pumping program from masking potential
tailings cell influence or interfering with other groundwater remediation efforts. The Tribe believes
that requiring EFR to collect a complete analytical suite at for certain wells will allow for early
detection of potentialtailings cell influence in the groundwater, for improved quality assurance, and
for sufficient geochemical characterization of groundwater in these areas.
b. Requested Revisions
The Tribe requests that DRC modify the SCO to require the following:
Monitoring wells located east of the legacy tailings impoundments and completed in areas
subject to multiple corrective action plans (such asTW4-22,TW4-24, andTW4-25) will be
sampf ed and analyzed for the full parameter list in Table 2 of the Groundwater Permit at a
frequency ofno less than once per year.
Compliance monitoring wells subject to Paft H of Attachment I the SCO, "Compliance
Monitoring Well Chloroform Excursion Requirements" which have exhibited two
consecutive exceedences of their GCAL concentration limits will be sampled and analyzed
for the full parameter list in Table 2 of the Groundwater Permit at a frequency of no less
than once per year in addition to the other requirements in Part H.
Monitoring wells located within 500 feet of the White Mesa Mill's property boundary will
be sampled and analyzed for the full parameter list in Table 2 of the Groundwater Permit at
a frequency ofno less than once per year.
The Tribe appreciates your time and attention to these comments. If you have any questions, please
do not hesitate to contact Special Counsel H. Michael Keller at (801) 237-0287, Associate General
Counsel Celene Hawkins at (970) 564-5642, or Scott Clow, Environmental Programs Director, at
(970) s64-s432.
Sincerely
/s/ Celene Hawkins
Celene Hawkins
Associate General Counsel
Ute Mountain Ute Tribe
H. Michael Keller