DRC-2016-008526 - 0901a0688064ca70

State of Utah
GARY R. HERBERT
Governor
SPENCER J. COX
Lieutenant Governor
Department of
Environmental Quality
Alan Matheson
Executive Director
DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
AND RADIATION CONTROL
Scott T. Anderson
Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: File
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Phil Goble, Manager
Tom Rushing, P.G.
July 12,2016
Review of the May 16, 2016 Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. 1st Quarter 2016 Ground
Water Monitoring Report for the White Mesa Uranium Mill
Review Summary:
The Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (“DWMRC”) has reviewed the following
documents submitted by Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. (“EFR”):
1. EFR, May 16, 2016, Transmittal of T' Quarter 2016 Groundwater Monitoring Report
Groundwater Quality Discharge Permit UGW370004 White Mesa Uranium Mill.
2. EFR, May 2,2016, State of Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit No. UGW3 70004 White
Mesa Uranium Mill - Notice Pursuant to Part LG. 1(a).
The review was conducted to ensure compliance with all applicable parts of Utah Groundwater Discharge
Permit No. UGW370004 (“Permit”) issued for the White Mesa Uranium Mill located in Blanding, Utah.
1. Checklist of Significant Findings of the 1st Otr. 2016 Report and Related Actions at the White
Mesa Uranium Mill:
1. The 1st Quarter 2016 Report was received on May 18, 2016, which was before the due date
(Permit Part I.F.l - due date of June 1,2016).
2. DWMRC notes that samples were analyzed by American West Analytical Laboratories
(“AWAL”) with the exception of Gross Radium Alpha which was analyzed by GEL
Laboratories EEC, Charleston, South Carolina. DWMRC verified that the laboratories
have current Utah certification for all parameters/methods used. No deviations/violations
of the currently approved Quality Assurance Plan for the White Mesa Uranium Mill were
noted.
3. Per a previous EFR request, a May 25, 2012 EFR Permit modification request was made in
order to document accelerated reporting and monitoring agreements made during a
teleconference with the DWMRC. Per DWMRC staff discussions: The May 25, 2012
request will be included with the White Mesa Mill Ground Water Permit Renewal.
DWMRC review of the 1st Quarter 2016 Report recognizes the telephone agreements
195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, UT
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144880 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4880
Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • T D.D [phone]
www deq Utah gov
Printed on 100% recycled paper
regarding timelines for EFR to submit compliance notices. The modification request is
currently being addressed through the Permit renewal process.
4. DWMRC Stipulated Consent Agreement, Docket No. UGW12-03 required EFR to submit
an October 10, 2012 Source Assessment Report, an April 13, 2012 pH Report, and a
December 12, 2012 Pyrite Investigation Report for previously documented out-of­
compliance parameters (multiple parameters). Per DWMRC review findings as
documented in a DWMRC review memo dated April 23, 2013, and transmitted via letter to
EFR dated April 25, 2013, it was recommended that specific GWCL parameters for
monitoring wells be modified (12 instances), GWCL’s for pH be modified for all
monitoring wells, and that GWCL’s be removed from the permit for three up-gradient
monitoring wells. These requests are currently being addressed through the Permit
Renewal process. Review of the 1st Quarter 2016 Report is based on current Permit
GWCL’s, modified GWCLs are required to undergo public notice requirements per the
Utah Administrative Code and listed in an active Permit.
5. Permit compliance limits for monitoring wells around the White Mesa Mill Tailings Cell
4B (Monitoring Wells MW-35, MW-36 and MW-37) were approved by the Director via
letter dated July 15, 2014. The approval was based on DWMRC staff review of a May 1,
2014 EFR Background Groundwater Quality Report for the wells. The approved GWCL’s
will not be enforceable until final inclusion in the renewal permit; therefore, the 1st Quarter
2016 Report data results were compared with the interim limits or groundwater quality
standards as listed in the currently active Permit.
6. Laboratory QA/QC flags were documented in the review period analytical data reports
from the contract laboratories. Per DWMRC review it appears that all discrepancies were
self-reported by EFR.
7. Two compliance parameters went into accelerated monitoring frequency during the
monitoring period (U and Cd in Monitoring Well MW-25), as discussed below.
8. Monitoring well MW-3 groundwater concentrations were noted to be variable during the
1st Quarter 2016 for some metals. Specifically a marked decrease in concentrations for
selenium and cadmium and a significant rise in concentration for zinc. These
concentration fluctuations are likely due to efforts to isolate a section of blank casing
below the monitoring well screened interval. It is likely that zinc concentrations are due to
contamination from the installed well packer.
9. EFR self-reported an issue with the March 2, 2016 result for the fluoride reporting limit in
monitoring well MW-30. In this accelerated sample the reporting limit was raised to 10
mg/L (100 times dilution) which is above the GWCL, however the result was reported as
<10 mg/L which is not in conformance with the facility QAP. DWMRC also noted that
the raised reporting limit was noted on the accelerated monitoring sample reporting limit
check table in the Report (Table G-5B) and was listed as an “error.” Since the violation
was minor and was self-reported by phone and clearly listed in the Report, enforcement
action will not be pursued.
2. Accelerated Monitoring and POC Wells Exceeding GWCL’s:
When a monitoring well has a pollutant that exceeds a Ground Water Compliance Limit (GWCL) set forth
in Table 2 of the Permit, it is in Probable Out-of-Compliance (POOC) status. According to the Permit,
EFR is then required to immediately initiate accelerated sampling of that pollutant (see the Permit, Part
I.G.l). When monitoring wells have parameters that have exceeded the Ground Water Compliance Limit
(GWCL) two or more consecutive times they are in Out-of-Compliance (OOC) status (see the Permit, Part
I.G.2).
EFR 1st Quarter 2016 Groundwater Monitoring Report
DWMRC Review Memo
Page 2
EFR 1st Quarter 2016 Groundwater Monitoring Report
DWMRC Review Memo
Page 3
In the event a constituent is in OOC status, EFR is required to prepare and submit within 30 calendar days
to the Director a plan and time schedule for assessment of the sources, extent and potential dispersion of
the contamination, and an evaluation of potential remedial action to restore and maintain groundwater
quality to ensure that Permit limits will not be exceeded at the compliance monitoring point and that DMT
or BAT will be re-established, in accordance with Part I.G.4(c) of the Permit.
Accelerated Monitoring Requirement Exception:
Per past DWMRC review; 1st Qtr., 2nd Qtr., and 3rd Qtr. 2011 Groundwater Monitoring Reports, DWMRC
issued a February 7, 2012 Notice of Enforcement Discretion (“NOED”) for failure on the part of EFR to
comply with these timelines for acceleration of groundwater monitoring at well MW-35.
EFR stated in a March 26, 2012 response to the NOED that based on an agreement made between
DWMRC and EFR during a telephone conference call on April 5, 2010, EFR is not required to implement
accelerated monitoring until “the month following the submission of the Exceedance Notice for a specified
quarter.” Based on DWMRC review of notes taken during the April 5, 2010 telephone conference (Loren
Morton 4/5/10), EFR verbally requested to wait until the end of the quarter to submit the notice of out-of
compliance status - but within 30 days of the last lab report that EFR receives for the quarterly monitoring
event.
DWMRC notified EFR by letter (dated April 16, 2012) that in order to formalize the April 5, 2010
discussion items related to out-of-compliance reporting and sampling, a written request for a groundwater
permit modification (groundwater permit, out-of-compliance notification and accelerated monitoring
requirements) was required for Director review and approval.
EFR submitted a May 25, 2012 written request for a Permit modification, including redline copies of
pertinent pages of the Permit to reflect the agreements made during the April 5, 2010 conference call. The
Permit modification request is currently under DWMRC review and is pending inclusion in the Permit
Renewal. In the interim, DWMRC is honoring the teleconference agreements and is not pursuing Permit
enforcement based on any instances of EFR failure to meet the current time and schedule submission
requirements stated in the Permit.
Current Accelerated Monitoring Status:
The table below (Table 1) lists monitoring wells with parameters currently in OOC or POOC status and
therefore required to be sampled under the accelerated monitoring requirements:
Table 1 - Wells Monitored Quarterly Accelerated to Monthly Monitoring
Well Class *Position Parameter Date of First
Exceedance of
GWCL
Date Accelerated
Monitoring First
Required
MW-11 Class II water D-3 Manganese February 2010 May 2010
MW-14 Class III water D-4A Field pH February 2010 May 2010
MW-25 Class III water C-3 Field pH 4'h Quarter 2010 February 2013
Uranium 1st Quarter 2016 April 2016
Chloride 1st Quarter 2013 June 2013
Cadmium 1st Quarter 2016 April 2016
EFR 1st Quarter 2016 Groundwater Monitoring Report
DWMRC Review Memo
Page 4
Well Class *Position Parameter Date of First Date Accelerated
Exceedance of Monitoring First
GWCL Required
Field pH February 2010 May 2010
Nitrate + Nitrite (as N)February 2010 May 2010
MW-26(a)Class III water C-2 Chloroform
Uranium
February 2010
February 2010
May 2010
May 2010
Chloride February 2010 May 2010
Dichloromethane April 2010 June 2010
Nitrate + Nitrite (as N)February 2010 May 2010
Chloride 1st Quarter 2011 May 2011
Selenium April 2010 July 2010
MW-30 Class II water D-2 Uranium 4th Quarter 2011 March 2014
Field pH 4th Quarter 2014 March 2015
Ammonia 4th Quarter 2014 March 2015
Fluoride 4th Quarter 2015 March 2016
Nitrate + Nitrite (as N)February 2010 May 2010
Chloride 1st Quarter 2011 May 2011
MW-31 Class III water D-2 Sulfate
TDS
4th Quarter 2010
September 2010
March 2011
January 2011
Selenium 3 rd Quarter 2012 December 2012
Field pH February 2014 June 2014
Uranium 2nd Quarter 2011 July 2011
Manganese 2nd Quarter 2011 July 2011
MW-35 Class II C-4B Thallium
Adjusted Gross Alpha
3rd Quarter 2011
3rd Quarter 2011
July 2011
October 2011
Selenium 3 rd Quarter 2012 December 2012
Field pH July 2011 August 2011
D = Down-gradient; U = Up-gradient; C = Cross-gradient; 1,2,3,4A = Cell #
a = Monitoring well MW-26 is a pumping well for the Chloroform investigation
Wells Monitored Semi-annually Accelerated to Quarterly Monitoring
Well Class *Position Parameter Date of First Date Accelerated
Exceedance of Monitoring First
GWCL Required
Field pH 3rd Quarter 2014 1st Quarter 2015
MW-1 Class II water U-l Sulfate 4th Quarter 2012 1st Quarter 2013
Chloride 2nd Quarter 2015 1st Quarter 2016
Selenium 2nd Quarter 2010 3rd Quarter 2010
Field pH 2nd Quarter 2010 3rd Quarter 2010
Fluoride 2nd Quarter 2010 3rd Quarter 2010
Nitrate + Nitrite (as N)4th Quarter 2013 2nd Quarter 2014
MW-3 Class III water D-4A Sulfate 4th Quarter 2013 2nd Quarter 2014
Zinc 2nd Quarter 2015 1st Quarter 2016
Thallium 4th Quarter 2015 3rd Quarter 2016
Cadmium 2nd Quarter 2015 1st Quarter 2016
Beryllium 2nd Quarter 2015 1st Quarter 2016
MW-3A Class III water D-4A Field pH 2nd Quarter 2010 3rd Quarter 2010
\
EFR 1st Quarter 2016 Groundwater Monitoring Report
DWMRC Review Memo
Page 5
Well Class • *Position Parameter Date of First
Exceedance of
GWCL
Date Accelerated
Monitoring First
Required
Sulfate
TDS
Selenium
Nitrate + Nitrate (as N)
2nd Quarter 2010
2nd Quarter 2010
4th Quarter 2010
4th Quarter 2012
3rd Quarter 2010
3rd Quarter 2010
lst Quarter 2011
1st Quarter 2013
MW-5 Class II water D-3 Uranium 4th Quarter 2010 1st Quarter 2011
MW-12 Class III water D-3 Field pH
Selenium
1st Quarter 2014
4th Quarter 2014
2nd Quarter 2014
2nd Quarter 2015
MW-15 Class III water D-4A Selenium
Field pH
2nd Quarter 2012
4lh Quarter 2013
3rd Quarter 2012
2nd Quarter 2014
MW-18 Class III water U-l
Thallium
Sulfate
TDS
Field pH
2nd Quarter 2010
2nd Quarter 2010
2nd Quarter 2010
1st Quarter 2014
3rd Quarter 2010
3rd Quarter 2010
3rd Quarter 2010
2nd Quarter 2014
MW-19 Class III water U-l Field pH
Nitrate + Nitrite as N
2nd Quarter 2010
4th Quarter 2011
3rd Quarter 2010
1st Quarter 2012
MW-24 Class III water D-l
Cadmium
Thallium
Field pH
Fluoride
Sulfate
2nd Quarter 2010
2nd Quarter 2010
2nd Quarter 2010
4th Quarter 2012
4th Quarter 2014
3rd Quarter 2010
3rd Quarter 2010
3rd Quarter 2010
1st Quarter 2013
2nd Quarter 2015
MW-27 Class III water U-l
Nitrate + Nitrite (as N)
Adjusted Gross Alpha
TDS
Chloride
Sulfate
Field pH
2nd Quarter 2010
4th Quarter 2010
1st Quarter 2010
1st Quarter 2010
2nd Quarter 2013
4th Quarter 2015
3rd Quarter 2010
4th Quarter 2014
3rd Quarter 2010
3rd Quarter 2010
1st Quarter 2014
3rd Quarter 2016
' MW-28 Class III water D-l
Field pH
Chloride
Cadmium
Uranium
Vanadium
1st Quarter 2014
2nd Quarter 2010
2nd Quarter 2014
2nd Quarter 2014
2nd Quarter 2014
2nd Quarter 2014
3rd Quarter 2010
2nd Quarter 2014
2nd Quarter 2014
2nd Quarter 2014
MW-29 Class III water D-2
Field pH
TDS
Sulfate
4th Quarter 2010
2nd Quarter 2012
2nd Quarter 2015
2nd Quarter 2011
3 rd Quarter 2012
1st Quarter 2016
MW-32 Class III water C-2
Adjusted Gross Alpha
Field pH
Chloride
2nd Quarter 2010
2nd Quarter 2010
1st Quarter 2015
3rd Quarter 2010
3rd Quarter 2010
2nd Quarter 2014
* D = Down-gradient; U = Up-gradient; C = Cross-gradient; 1, 2, 3, 4A = Cell #
Table 1 above is a comprehensive list of all Groundwater Monitoring Wells in Accelerated Status as of the
first quarter of 2016. EFR is required to notify the DWMRC on a quarterly basis regarding wells and
parameters which went into accelerated monitoring during the period [Part LG. 1(a), Accelerated
Monitoring Status Reports (AMSR)]. For the 1st quarter 2016 monitoring, the AMSR and follow up Plan
and Time Schedule [Required by the Permit Part I.G.4(d)] was received, dated May 2, 2016 (received by
DWMRC on May 4, 2016).
Two parameters with new exceedances were noted per review of the AMSR: MW-25 was accelerated from
Quarterly to monthly based on 1st Quarter 2016 exceedance of the Uranium and Cadmium GWCL’s.
DWMRC notes that these parameters at monitoring well MW-25 were recently returned to baseline
monitoring (based on eight consecutive measurements below the GWCL’s) but were slightly above the
GWCL’s during the 1st Quarter of 2016 for a single monitoring result and therefore resumed accelerated
monitoring.
EFR 1st Quarter 2016 Groundwater Monitoring Report
DWMRC Review Memo
Page 6
3. Monitoring Wells Purged for Two Casine Volumes Before Sample Collection:
As stated in Section 6.2.7 of the EFR Quality Assurance Plan (QAP), Rev. 7.2, EFR has a choice regarding
purge volumes as follows:
Purging three well casing volumes with a single measurement offield parameters
2. Purging two casing volumes with stable field parameters (within 10% RPD)
3. Purging a well to dryness and stability of a limited list offield parameters after recovery’'’
Per DWMRC review of the Report, the following purge methods were used during the 1st Quarter 2016
(including accelerated samples). Purge methods and volumes are summarized on Table G-1A of the l5'
Quarter 2016 Monitoring Report:
I Quarter 1| # Purged 2 Casing Volumes || # Purged to Dryness 1 # Purged 3 Casing Volumes 1
Is1 Qtr. 2016 30 3 3
When purging two casing volumes, EFR QAP Rev. 7.2 directs EFR to first calculate the amount of time to
evacuate two casing volumes and then pump for that length of time. Per DWMRC cross-check of the field
data sheets for each of the reports reviewed, it appears EFR correctly calculated the well casing volumes
and evacuated the required two volumes (when 2 casing volume method selected) in monitoring wells prior
to sample collection during the 1st Quarter 2015 monitoring period. Volumes are calculated according to
measured pump rates and can be verified by calibration marks on the collection containers.
During the 1st Quarter of 201 monitoring three wells were pumped or bailed to dryness. In cases where
wells are evacuated to dryness the QAP Rev. 7.2 requires that:
“(vii) If the well is purged to dryness:
Record the number of gallons purged on the Field Data Worksheet.
The well should be sampled as soon as a sufficient volume of groundwater is available to fill sample
containers.
Upon arrival at the well after recovery or when sufficient water is available for sampling measure depth to
water and record on the Field Data Worksheet.
Take one set of measurements offield parameters for pH, specific conductance and temperature only.
Collect the samples into the appropriate sample containers.
Take an additional set of measurements offield parameters for pH, specific conductance and temperature
after the samples have been collected.
If the field parameters ofpH, specific conductance and temperature are within 10% RPD the samples can
be shipped for analysis.
If the field parameters of pH, specific conductance and temperature are not within 10% RPD, dispose of
the sample aliquots, and purge the well again as described above.
Repeat this process if necessary for three complete purging events. If after the third purging the event, the
parameters of pH, specific conductance and temperature do not stabilize to within 10% RPD, the well is
considered sufficiently purged and collected samples can be submittedfor analysis.”
DWMRC staff verified that in cases where the monitoring well was evacuated to dryness and samples were
collected, the number of gallons evacuated was recorded in compliance with the QAP. Also, DWMRC
staff verified that depth to groundwater was measured and recorded (comments field) on the field sheet.
4. Relative Percentage Difference Calculations and Radioloeical Comparisons for Blind
Duplicate Analysis:
DWMRC conducted a review of the blind duplicate samples collected during the lsl Quarter 2016. Per the
facility QAP, one blind duplicate must be collected with each sample batch. DWMRC confirmed that one
blind duplicate was collected for each batch - 4 total during the quarterly event - two with the baseline
samples (MW-36/MW-65 on 2-11-16 and MW-14/MW-70 on 2-15-16) and two with the accelerated
samples (MW-30/MW-65 on 1-20-16 and MW-35/MW-65 on 3-2-16).
The duplicates are required to be within 20% Relative Percent Difference (RPD), unless “the measured
concentrations are less than 5 times the required detection limit (Standard Methods, 1998).”
Per updated language in the QAP Rev. 7.2 Part 9.1.4, if any of the samples do not meet the comparison
criteria (and are not qualified according to the 5 times method detection limit criteria) then EFR is required
to conform to the procedures for corrective action listed as follows:
1. Notify the laboratory,
2. Request the laboratory review all analytical results for transcription and calculation errors, and,
3. If the samples are still within holding time, the QA Manager may request the laboratory re-analyze
the affected samples.
Per DWMRC cross check of the blind duplicate samples collected and analyzed during the 1st Qtr. 2016
sampling event all sample results conform to the Permit requirements (within 20% RPD) with the
exception of Ammonia as N duplicate MW-36/MW-65 for the February 11, 2016 sample.
Regarding the Ammonia as N duplicate MW-36/MW-65 for the February 11, 2016 sample, EFR provides
the following explanation in the 1st 2016 Report, “Both of the ammonia sample results reported for MW-
30/MW-65 were not five times greater than the reporting limits of 0.05 and as such the deviation from the
20% RPD requirement is acceptable.” The White Mesa Quality Assurance Plan, Section 9.1.4.a states,
“RPD’s will be calculated in comparison of duplicate and original field sample results. Non-conformance
will exist when the RPD >20% unless the measured concentrations are less than 5 times the required
EFR 1st Quarter 2016 Groundwater Monitoring Report
DWMRC Review Memo
Page 7
detection limit (Standard Methods, 1998).” Therefore, the ammonia results and comparisons are within the
requirements of the Quality Assurance Plan.
5. Analytical Laboratories Used by EFR Certified by State of Utah to Perform Analysis for all
Analytes:
The analytical laboratories (GEL Laboratories LLC, Charleston, SC and American West Analytical
Laboratories, Salt Lake City, UT) were contracted by EFR to perform analysis on the samples collected
during the 1st Quarter, 2016. Per DWMRC review of the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation
Management System Website (cross check of laboratory certification for specific parameters) it appears
that the EFR contract laboratories were certified to perform analysis for the specified parameters during the
review period as follows.
GEL Laboratories LLC current Utah Certification:
Basic Details
Name GEL Laboratories, LLC
Type of Lab Commercial
'TNI Lab Code TNI00188
EPACode SC00012
State ID E87156
Website
Extended Details
Primary AB responsible
for lab demographics Utah Department of Health
GIS Location
Description
Comments
Effective Date
Commercial Samples Yes
Active Yes
Address 1
Type Location
Company
Contact JAMES B. WESTMORELAND
Address 1 2040 Savage Rd
Address 2
City Charleston
State South Carolina
Zip 29407
Country US
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]
American West Analytical Laboratories Current Utah Certification
Basic Details
Name American West Analytical Laboratories
Type of Lab Commercial
EFR 1st Quarter 2016 Groundwater Monitoring Report
DWMRC Review Memo
Page 8
TNI Lab Code TNI01955
EPACode UT00031
State ID 8012638686
Website
Extended Details
Primary AB responsible
for lab demographics Utah Department of Health
GIS Location
Description
Comments
Effective Date
Commercial Samples Yes
Active Yes
Address 1
Type Location
Company
Contact Kyle Gross
Address 1 463 West 3600 South
Address 2
City Salt Lake City
State Utah
Zip 84115-
Country US
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]
DWMRC noted that the only analyte requested by EFR to be analyzed by GEL Laboratories was gross
alpha (Gross Alpha Radium) and that GEL Laboratories holds current accreditation in Utah for that analyte
method EPA 900.1 GFPC Modified.
6. Laboratory Report Turn Around Times:
Per DWMRC review of EFR Table 1 included in the Is' Qtr. 2016 Report, it was noted that laboratory
report turnaround times (from date of EFR sample submission to the contract laboratory) for normal
frequency monitoring was less than 30 days for all samples (not including re-submission/corrected reports).
Per DWMRC review it was noted that EFR acted quickly to identify any deficiencies in the reports and
request corrected versions.
There is not a turnaround time requirement in the current QAP; therefore, current turnaround times are
judgment based. DWMRC has raised concern over excessive laboratory turn-around times in the past and
the Director may require a turn-around date be included in the facility QAP if any future concerns
regarding analysis turnaround times are noted. Based on DWMRC review the turn-around times for the 1st
Quarter 2016, data turn-around times and EFR data review timelines appear to be reasonable/appropriate.
7. Sample Holding Times:
Per Table G-2A and Table G-2B of the Report, all method holding times were met for each analyte
submitted for laboratory analysis. DWMRC staff cross checked all holding time requirements and verified
EFR 1st Quarter 2016 Groundwater Monitoring Report
DWMRC Review Memo
Page 9
that all samples/analytes appeared to be analyzed within holding times during the 1st Qtr. 2016 reporting
period.
EFR 1st Quarter 2016 Groundwater Monitoring Report
DWMRC Review Memo
Page 10
8. Sample Preservation:
Per review of the 1st Quarter 2016 Report (Table G-3A and Laboratory Check-in Sheets) it appears that all
samples required to be chilled (<6° C) met the temperature preservation requirements. Per review of the
laboratory check in sheets and laboratory QA/QC, no issues related to sample preservation were noted.
9. Laboratory OA/OC Flags - 1st Quarter 2016:
QA/QC issues and DWMRC findings for the 1st Quarter 2016 are summarized below:
Non-Conformance Summary Self-
Identified?
EFR Corrective Action
Summary
DWMRC Findings
Laboratory reporting limits
were raised for various
samples for analysis of Ca,
Cl, K, Na, S04, Mg,
Zn,TDS, and, Nitrate/Nitrite
(as N).
Y EFR states that the raised
RL’s are due to sample
dilution and qualifies the data
in Table G based on all
sample results being above
the raised RL.
The EFR QAP allows for
raised RL’s if due to the need
for dilution. DWMRC
verified that in all cases when
the RL was raised above the
QAP required RL the sample
result was higher in
concentration.
MW-31,MW-35-Gross
Alpha Counting Error was
not < 20% of the sample
analysis result (sample
activity).
Y The sample result + the
counting errors were less than
the GWCL in all cases and
are therefore acceptable.
Per the QAP Part 9.1.4(b)
“An error term may be
greater than 20% of the
reported activity
concentration when the sum
of the activity concentration
and error term is less than or
equal to the GWCL”
Matrix Spike % recovery
outside of range: MW-
11 Ammonia, MW-32 Gross
Alpha, MW-37 Nitrate,
MW-37 Tetrahydrofuran
MW-37 Gross Alpha, MW-
65 Ammonia, MW-30
Ammonia.
Y None Per the QAP Part 8.1.2(a)
matrix spikes are required but
there are no requirements
which would disqualify the
laboratory data.
Laboratory Duplicate %
Recovery Comparison
Outside of Range MW-32
Gross Alpha.
Y Per AWAL Data Sheet: High
RPD due to suspected sample
non-homogeneity or matrix
interference
Data was reported with a
qualifier.
Note: DWMRC reviewed the holding time summary chart; no exceedances of ho ding times were noted
DWMRC reviewed the temperature check charts, all sample batches were received by the laboratory <6° C.
10.Review of Time-Concentration Plots
The Permit Part I.F. 1 .g requires EFR to submit Time-Concentration Plots for each monitoring well for
primary indicators of cell leakage (based on tailings cell concentrations and ground water partitioning and
retardation coefficients); chloride, fluoride, sulfate and uranium. DWMRC notes that per the discussions
with EFR, it was agreed to that EFR need not plot trend lines on the Time Concentration Plots and that all
data is included on the plots (no data culled from the set). Per DWMRC review of the 1st Qtr. 2016 Report,
the reviewed plots appear to be in conformance with the agreed upon changes, no issues were identified.
EFR 1st Quarter 2016 Groundwater Monitoring Report
DWMRC Review Memo
Page 11
11. Review of Depth to Groundwater Measurements and Water Table Contour Maps
Per DWMRC cross checks of groundwater elevation measurement calculations used for the 1st Quarter
2016, approximately 5% of wells cross checked, comparing surface measured elevations minus measured
static levels with plotted elevations, no errors were noted.
The upper wildlife ponds at the White Mesa Mill were taken offline (pond recharge from Recapture
Reservoir discontinued) during the 4th Quarter 2011 in order to re-establish groundwater contours.
Hydrographs of the upper wildlife pond ground water piezometers (Water Level Elevation vs. Time) are
included below. It was also noted that the static water levels in several monitoring wells close to the upper
wildlife ponds showed significant decrease in water levels during recent quarterly monitoring. These
declines can be attributed to natural dissipation of the area ground water mound and/or ground water
pumping activities related to corrective action of nitrate and chloroform contamination plumes
(development of cone of depressions around pumping wells).
tUC Whit* M*u Mill Hydrograph*: Pkzometer* © North Wltdlit* Pond*
[ P-2 -----P-3 -0-B-1
EFR 1st Quarter 2016 Groundwater Monitoring Report
DWMRC Review Memo
Page 12
JUC Wftte imm urn Hydroflnpn*. Ptozomcttn C Soutft wudirt* Poo<J»
SM
iMS
5^**
5343
El
3I
1542
5X1
9.54a
SAX
55U
5X7
5 534
5X5
5534
5553
5X2
5»1
5X3
S&»
5X4
S.52T
5X4
5,525 5-I
5
--------V."
■» »■«;
Nitrate and Chloroform Corrective Action Plan Pumping Wells:
Ground water elevations are being impacted by effects from ground water pumping for the nitrate and
chloroform contamination plume remediation. The following monitoring wells have been converted to
active pumping wells:
Nitrate Pumping Wells TW4-22, TW4-24, TW4-25, TWN-2
Chloroform Pumping Wells - MW-4, MW-26, TW4-19, TW4-20, TW4-4
The nitrate pumping project was initiated during January 2013 (TW4-22, TW4-24, TW4-25 and TWN-2).
The chloroform pumping project was initiated during April 2003 utilizing two wells (Wells MW-4 and
TW4-19). Monitoring well MW-26 was then converted to a pumping well during August 2003.
Monitoring well TW4-20 was initiated as a pumping well during August 2005, and monitoring well TW4-4
was initiated as a pumping well during January 2010.
The pumping wells for both the nitrate and chloroform projects are set up with a delay device wherein the
wells purge for a set amount of time then shut off in order to let the well recharge. All pumping wells
include a flow meter which records the volume of water pumped from the well in gallons. Quarterly nitrate
and chloroform reports are prepared by EFR and include pump volumes and delineation of pump capture
zones based on kriged water contours. The kriged water level maps included with the 1st Quarter 2015
Report include these areas which are directly southwest from the upper wildlife ponds.
DWMRC expects that ground water elevation contours will continue to adjust in response to the pumping
activities and discontinuance of recharge to the upper wildlife ponds.
12, EFR May 2,2016 Notice Pursuant to the Permit Part LG.l(a)
The EFR May 2,2016 Notice Pursuant to the Permit Part I. G. 1 (a) (“Notice”) discusses the status of
monitoring wells and parameters in probable out-of-compliance (“POOC”) and out-of-compliance
(“OOC”) status, as updated through the 1st Quarter 2015. DWMRC notes that the Notice was submitted
timely regarding currently agreed upon schedules.
EFR 1st Quarter 2016 Groundwater Monitoring Report
DWMRC Review Memo
Page 13
The Notice summarizes wells/parameters with OOC status which have been resolved by either separate
corrective actions plans or approved modified GWCL’s (pending inclusion in the renewal Permit). The
Notice also lists two monitoring well/parameter (MW-25 Cadmium and MW-25 Uranium) which went into
OOC status during the 1st Quarter 2016. The Notice notes “EFRI requested removal of these constituents
from accelerated monitoring by letters dated November 18, 2015 and February 11, 2016. DWMRC
approved the removal of these constituents from monthly accelerated monitoring by letters dated February
25, 2016 and March 30, 2016... Accelerated monthly monitoring of these constituents has continued
uninterrupted and will continue. ” DRC notes that the samples were only very slightly above the GWCL’s
in the 1st Qtr. 2016 sample and that no upward trend in concentrations is indicated.
Based on DWMRC review of the Notice it appears that all requirements of the Permit were met.
13. Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on DWMRC staff review of the above listed documents, it was noted that the requirements of the
Permit appear to have been met by EFR and the data collected during the 1st Quarter of 2016 appears to be
reliable. It is recommended that a correspondence letter be sent to EFR with the following items:
1. Close-out regarding DWMRC review of the EFR May 16, 2016, 1st Quarter 2016 White Mesa
Uranium Mill Groundwater Monitoring Report based on findings as summarized above.
2. Close-out regarding DWMRC review of the EFR May 2, 2016 Notice.
14. References
1 Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc., May 16, 2016, f Quarter2016 Groundwater Monitoring Report,
Groundwater Discharge Permit UGW370004, White Mesa Uranium Mill.
2 Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc., May 2, 2016, State of Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit No.
UGW370004 White Mesa Uranium Mill - Notice Pursuant to Part I.G. 1(a).
3 Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc., June 6, 2012, White Mesa Uranium Mill Ground Water Monitoring
Quality Assurance Plan (QAP), Revision 7.2.
4INTERA Incorporated, 2007, Revised Background Groundwater Quality Report: Existing Wells
for Dension Mines (USA) Corp. ’s White Mesa Uranium Mill Site, San Juan County, Utah.
5 INTERA Incorporated, 2007, Background Groundwater Quality Report: New Wells for Denison Mines
(USA) Corp. ’s White Mesa Uranium Mill Site, San Juan County, Utah.
6 Hurst, T.G., and Solomon, D.K., 2008. Summary of Work Completed, Data Results,
Interpretations and Recommendations for the July 2007 Sampling Event at the Denison
Mines, USA, White Mesa Uranium Mill located near Blanding Utah. Prepared by University of Utah
Department of Geology and Geophysics.
7 Utah Department of Environmental Quality, August 24, 2012, Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit,
Permit No. UGW370004 issued for the Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. White Mesa Uranium Mill.
EFR 1st Quarter 2016 Groundwater Monitoring Report
DWMRC Review Memo
Page 14