DRC-2018-006564 - 0901a0688086901f

Department of Environmental Quality
Alan Matheson Executive Director State of Utah
GARY R. HERBERT Governor
SPENCER J. COX Lieutenant Governor
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Phil Goble
DNISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
AND RADIATION CONTROL
Scott T. Anderson Director
MEMORANDUM
Pf26
Dean Henderson /14-
June 13, 2018
,4;:0/0
6'/!J /zcJ/ I
SUBJECT: Review of the December 11, 2017 Nitrate Corrective Action Comprehensive Monitoring Evaluation ("CACME") Report, White Mesa Uranium Mill, near Blanding, Utah, for Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. ("EFRI"), Stipulated and Consent Order UDEQ Docket No. UGW12-04 ("SCO").
The Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control ("Division") has reviewed the December 11, 2017 CACME Report. The following documents were used for this review:
•Stipulation and Consent Order Docket No. UGW12-04 ("SCO"), for Energy Fuels Resources(USA) Inc., signed December 12, 2012.•HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC., Corrective Action Plan for Nitrate White Mesa Uranium Millnear Blanding Utah ("CAP") May 7, 2012.
REVIEW
In accordance with SCO Section D.1 EFRI is required:
"Fully implement all elements of the May 7, 2012 White Mesa Uranium Mill Nitrate CAP according to, but not limited to, Phases and activities, timelines, monitoring.frequencies and protocols, reporting requirements, and objectives outlined therein. "
The Division has reviewed all quarterly nitrate monitoring reports after the effective date of the SCO (December 12, 2012) from the 1st quarter 2013 to 4th quarter 2017. The reports met the timelines outlined in the SCO and adequately summarized the groundwater quarterly sampling events. All required monitor wells were sampled and analyzed for the required contaminants at the specified monitoring frequencies. In addition, the nitrate pumping system was maintained. EFR appears to have fully implemented requirements in Section SCO D.1.
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
Page 2
In accordance with SCO Section D.2 EFRI is required submit the CACME five (5) years from the
effective date of the SCO December 12, 2012. EFRI submitted the CACME on December 12, 2017 and
met this requirement.
As required in the Section SCO Section D.2.a), b) and c) the CACME is to include:
2. Five (5) years from the effective date of this ORDER, EFR shall submit a Corrective Action
Comprehensive Monitoring Evaluation (CACME) Report to the Utah Division of Radiation
Control (DRC) that will include:
a) An estimate of the rate of nitrate plume remediation (percent mass reduction and
concentration reduction per year) and projected timeline to return groundwater nitrate
concentrations to the Groundwater Quality Standards using Phase II alone, including any
adjustments to the reclamation surety estimate;
b) Identification of any changes to Phase II to improve effectiveness and accelerate the
remediation timeline, and;
c) Unless it has been determined to the satisfaction of the DIRECTOR that Phase II has
returned or will return nitrate concentrations to the Utah Groundwater Quality Standard
within five (5) years, then preparation of a Phase III planning document including a
transport assessment, a hazard assessment, and an exposure assessment along with a
corrective action assessment including an evaluation of best available remedial
technologies as described in the May 12, 2012 CAP Section 7.3.
The CACME reported:
Comparing the 2nd quarter 2010 baseline nitrate mass estimate of 43,700 lb. with the 3' quarter 2017
mass estimate of approximately 32,940 lbs. (see CACME Table 1 in Attachment 1 below); it appears
that the plume mass has decreased approximately 10,760 lbs. or about 25%. The Figure 6 trend line
shows the plume mass has decreased approximately 5,000 lbs. or 11% (see CACME Figure 6 in
Attachment 1 below).
Since the 1st quarter of 2013 to 3rd quarter 2017, the average nitrate mass removed only by pumping
wells within and marginal to the plume is approximately 401 lbs./yr. Averages of the estimated
nitrate reduction rates resulting from preliminary calculations of natural nitrate reduction range from
approximately 172 lbs. /yr. to 200 lbs. /yr. Therefore, an estimated of a total rate of mass reduction
ranges from approximately 573 lbs. /yr. to 601 lbs. /yr.
As calculated for the 3rd quarter of 2017, the current nitrate plume residual mass of approximately
32,940 lbs. Therefore, approximately 54 and 57 years would be required to reduce the mass within
the plume to a negligible value (near <0.1 mg/L) by pumping and natural nitrate reduction.
Approximately 164 and 192 years would be required via natural reduction alone. Nitrate mass
removal by pumping is could possibly drop off in the future due to reduced nitrate concentrations
and the saturated thicknesses reduced limiting achievable pumping rates, so the actual time,
assuming pumping continues, will be more than 54 and less than 192 years.
Page 3
Based on fastest estimated groundwater flow rates (75 to 130 ft/yr), the Division finds the calculations
and estimations of time when nitrate concentration in the groundwater will return to Ground Water
Quality Standards ("GWQS") before reaching points of diversion reasonable.
The CMCME stated: "However, because it is only necessary to reduce nitrate concentrations
within the plume below 10 mg/L, and it will not be necessary to essentially remove all the nitrate
mass to achieve this condition, the actual time to remediate the plume will be smaller than as
calculated above. In addition, natural attenuation processes that include dilution and hydrodynamic
dispersion will reduce nitrate concentrations within the plume and contribute to an additional
reduction of the remediation time. Furthermore, expected continuing reductions in plume volume
will also reduce remediation times."
The Division also finds this statement reasonable.
The CMCME stated: "The estimated times to reduce the nitrate plume mass to a negligible value
indicate that even under worst-case conditions of no pumping, natural degradation of nitrate is
likely to reduce mass within the plume to a negligible value within less than 200 years. Because
thousands of years would be required for nitrate within the plume to migrate to a discharge point
(either Westwater Seep or Ruin Spring) based on calculations presented in HGC (2014), there is
more than sufficient time to reduce mass within the plume to a negligible value before a discharge
point is reached:"
The Division agrees that based on the mass removal data that the nitrate mass could be reduced to
negligible values within less than 200 years is reasonable. However, we disagree that it will take
thousands of years for the nitrate plume to migrate to discharge points located at Westwater seep or Ruin
Spring or as stated in the CACME "the estimated time for impacted water to reach the nearest
discharge point (Westwater seep or Ruin Spring) is greater than 3,230 years [HGC 2014] ". The
licensee is well aware that ground water velocities across the site can vary. The Division understands
how the measured hydraulic conductivities hydraulic gradients, and flow paths reported in the HGC
2014 could calculate estimated time nitrate impacted groundwater could reach Westwater seep or Ruin
Spring is greater than 3,230 years. However, it is known that the chloroform came from the leach fields
in 1979 and was found that the groundwater at well MW-4 was impacted by chloroform in 1999. The
approximate distance between the leach fields and MW-4 is 1300 feet. It appears the chloroform plume
travel time is at least approximately 65 ft/yr. In the HGC 2014 report flow velocities of 76 ft/yr and 84
Ft./yr were calculated in the area of the chloroform plume. At well MW-11 located approximately
1,000 feet down gradient of the nitrate plume and wells MW-30 and MW 31 hydraulic conductivities of
1.19E-03 cm/sec and 1.63E-03 cm/sec were calculated (HGC 2014) which would result in an estimated
flow velocities 100 ft/yr or more. The Division feels that there are possible undetected ground water
flow path between MW-30 or MW-31 and Westwater seep or Ruin Spring that may have ground water
flow velocities exceeding 65 feet/year that would reach westwater or ruin springs much less time than
3230 years.
Based on the CACME Report estimating between 54 and 192 years and required to reduce the nitrate
mass within the plume to a negligible value (near <0.1 mg/L [non detection value]) by pumping and
natural nitrate reduction may be reasonable. A comprehensive groundwater investigation would be
required to refine the possible reduction of nitrate concentrations at Ruin spring and Westwater seep.
Page 4
Based on the 1st quarter 2013 to 4th quarter 2017 monitoring reports and the CACME Report the nitrate
plume is completely bounded by the existing monitoring network and concentration criteria presented in
Phase II of the CAP the nitrate plume is under control.
The CACME reported:
Perched water levels within the northern 2/3 of the nitrate plume have been decreasing as a result of
pumping and reduced wildlife pond recharge. For example, the rate of perched groundwater flow
within the plume (to the south-southwest near wells TW4-22 and TW4-24) has decreased from a
pre-pumping calculated range of approximately 1.31 to 2.79 gpm to approximately 0.79 to 1.67 gpm,
and continues to decrease. The decline in the rate of perched groundwater flow within the plume
reduces the pumping rates. Consequently, the groundwater pumping data and water level data show
saturated thicknesses within the northern 2/3 of the plume have been generally decreasing. The
reduction in saturated thicknesses within the northern 2/3 of the plume reduces the volume of water
within the plume and consequently reduces the mass of nitrate within the plume. The reduction in
saturated thickness within the northern (upgradient) portion of the plume, which contains the
majority of the nitrate mass, has been reduced as much as 28%.
The Division agrees based on the pumping and water level data it's reasonable to see how the nitrate
plume has been decreasing of its saturated thickness as a result of pumping and reduced wildlife pond
recharge. It now appears possible to dewater the aquifer to render the current nitrate pumping system
ineffective.
The CACME Concluded and Recommended:
Although Phase II actions are expected to return groundwater nitrate concentrations to the Utah
Groundwater Quality Standard of 10 mg/L, based on data collected to date, it is currently not
expected that this will be accomplished within the next five years. Based on that analysis, CACME
demonstrates that Phase II meets all performance criteria in the CAP and that continuation of Phase
II is adequate and appropriate at this time. As a result, implementation of Phase III is not necessary
or desirable at this time and recommends that Phase II continue until such time as it ceases to meet
applicable criteria or EFRI elects to implement Phase III.
The Division disagrees. The SCO section D.2(c) states:
"Unless it has been determined to the satisfaction of the DIRECTOR that Phase II has returned
or will return nitrate concentrations to the Utah Groundwater Quality Standard within five (5)
years, then preparation of a Phase III planning document including a transport assessment, a
hazard assessment, and an exposure assessment along with a corrective action assessment
including an evaluation of best available remedial technologies as described in the May 12
2012 CAP Section 7.3."
The EFRI has not been able to meet this requirement. Therefore, the Division believes EFRI should
proceed with Phase III.
Division Recomends
1. Inplementation of SCO section D.2(c) "Unless it has been determined to the satisfaction of the
DIRECTOR that Phase 11 has returned or will return nitrate concentrations to the Utah
Page 5
Groundwater Quality Standard within five (5) years, then preparation of a Phase III planning
document including a transport assessment, a hazard assessment, and an exposure assessment
along with a corrective action assessment including an evaluation of best available remedial
technologies as described in the May 12, 2012 CAP Section 7.3."
2. Quarterly monitoring and reporting will continue as required under the CAP Phase II.
On June 12, 2018 a conference call was held with EFRI representatives to discuss items 1 and 2 above.
The result of the conference call was that EFRI would like a 90 day window for a meeting to discuss the
path forward on Nitrate Phase III. At that meeting the date for future submittals based on the results of
the meeting and acceptance of their technical approach would be established (see email in Attachment
1). DWMRC staff agreed with EFRI and a Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) will be sent to EFRI
documenting their commitment to begin preparation of the nitrate Phase III as outlined in SCO section
D.2(c).
Page 6
References
HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC., Hydrogeology of the White Mesa Uranium Mill, Blanding
Utah, June 6, 2014.
HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC., Corrective Action Plan for Nitrate White Mesa Uranium Mill
near Blanding Utah, May 7, 2012.
Stipulation and Consent Order Docket No. UGW12-04, for Energy Fuels Resources (USA)
Inc., signed December 12, 2012.
Page 7
ATTACHMENT 1
Table 1
Figure 1
June 12, 2018 EFRI email
TABLE 1
Quarterly Nitrate Plume Area, Mass Pumped, Residual Mass, and Average Concentrations During Phase II
(and including Q2 2010 and Q4 2012 data)
Quarter
Number
of Plume
Wells
Plume
Area
(m2)
1Total Mass
Pumped/Quarter
(lb)
Residual
Plume Mass
(lb)
2Average
Nitrate
Concentration (mg/L)
3Average
Nitrate
Concentration (mg/L)
Q2 2010 8 2.77E+05 NA 43700 26.3 21.2 Q4 2012 9 2.60E+05 NA 33845 18.6 18.4
Q1 2013 7 2.74E+05 89.2 41350 32.3 22.2
Q2 2013 7 2.67E+05 85.3 34140 30.7 19.8
Q3 2013 8 2.80E+05 169.3 36930 28.1 20
Q4 2013 6 2.89E+05 154.8 41150 43 23.1
Q1 2014 7 2.64E+05 96.4 31410 28.4 19.3
Q2 2014 7 2.57E+05 96.2 30620 29 19.6
Q3 2014 6 2.29E+05 87.5 24140 27.3 17.6
Q4 2014 7 2.77E+05 102.0 34370 32.5 21
Q1 2015 7 2.87E+05 72.8 38740 30.9 21.7
Q2 2015 8 2.73E+05 61.4 33042 29.2 19.9
Q3 2015 10 2.92E+05 109.1 34880 26.8 19.6
Q4 2015 9 2.65E+05 116.1 30980 26.8 19.6
Q1 2016 10 2.76E+05 124.0 33083 27.1 19.8
Q2 2016 9 2.56E+05 91.3 28465 25.5 18.5
Q3 2016 10 2.79E+05 93.1 32230 25.7 20.4
Q4 2016 13 2.90E+05 98.7 31798 22 18.7 Q1 2017 12 3.15E+05 104.3 43787 24.6 23.3
Q2 2017 8 2.68E+05 71.6 32145 28.7 20.4
Q3 2017 10 2.74E+05 84.3. 32939 25.4 20.6
Notes:
1 = from wells within and along plume margin
2 = average of concentrations in wells within plume
3 = average concentrations based on gridded data (weighted average)
lb = pounds
mg/L = milligrams per liter
m2 = square meters
NA = not applicable
H:\718000\71807\NCACME\NandWL_data_since 1Q2013.xlsx: Table 1 (mass and C)
50000
45000
40000
VA 35000
a =.
30000 ,(1,'
8 z v) ea 25000 1141‘f v., rts
a 173 20000 = 7 t7) E.)
15000
10000
5000
Q2 04 01 Q2 03 Q4 01 Q2 Q3 04 Q1 Q2 03 04 Q1 Q2 Q3 04 Q1 02 03
2010 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013 2014 2014 2014 2014 2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 2017 2017 2017
date
...........: mass
........-- Linear (mass)
HYDRO RESIDUAL NITRATE PLUME MASS
(INCLUDES BASELINE AND Q4 2012 MASS ESTIMATES) GEO
iter CHEM, INC. Apea D1a0t/e20/17 AutSheJtS D1a0te/20/17 n le NF%reMeass Rgure 6
H:\718000\71807\NCACMENandWLdata_since 102013.xlsx: F6 mass
6/13/2018 State of Utah Mail - Time frame for Nitrate CACME meeting
Dean Henderson <[e-mail]>
Time frame for Nitrate CACME meeting
3 messages
Kathy Weinel <[e-mail]> Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 11:47 AM
To: Phillip Goble <[e-mail]>, Dean Henderson <[e-mail]>
Cc: David Frydenlund <[e-mail]>, Stewart Smith <[e-mail]>, Scott Bakken
<[e-mail]>
Phil and Dean,
We discussed the time needed for the meeting on Nitrate Phase 111 relative to other commitments we have. We would like to
have a 90 day window for the meeting to discuss the path forward on Nitrate Phase III.
At the meeting we would set the date for future submittals. Future submittal dates would be based on the results of the
meeting and acceptance of our technical approach.
Let me know if you have any issues with this schedule.
Energy Fuels Resources ((JSA) Inc.
Kathy Weinel
Quality Assurance Manager
t: 303.389.4134 l f: 303.389.4125
225 Union Blvd., Suite 600
Lakewood, CO 80228
http://www.energyfuels.com
This e-mail is intended for the exclusive use of person(s) mentioned as the recipient(s). This message and any attached files with it are confidential and may contain
privileged or proprietary information. if you are not the intended recipient(s) please delete this message and notify the sender. You may not use, distribute print or
copy this message if you are not the intended recipient(s).
Dean Henderson <[e-mail]> Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:35 AM
To: Kathy Weinel <[e-mail]>
Hi Kathy,
A 90 day window for the meeting to discuss the path forward on Nitrate Phase 111works for us. In a letter to EFR documenting
this 90 day window would using the date to have this meeting on or before September 12, 2018 be agreeable this you?
Dean
[Quoted text hidden]
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=50c70a6199&jsver=k8XTJ0J1kuE.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180606.07_p4&view=pt&search=inbox&th=163fa1fa12ba2839&sir
6/13/2018 State of Utah Mail - Time frame for Nitrate CACME meeting
Disclaimer:
Statements made in this e-mail do not constitute the official position of the Director of the Division of Waste Management and
Radiation Control. lf you desire a statement of the Director's position, please submit a written request to this office, on paper,
including documents relevant to your request.
Raymond Wixom
Assistant-Attorney General
Kathy Weinel <[e-mail]> Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:09 AM
To: Dean Henderson <[e-mail]>
That works.
Thanks!
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) lnc.
Kathy Weinel
Quality Assurance Manager
t: 303.389.4134 l f: 303.389.4125
225 Union Blvd., Suite 600
Lakewood, CO 80228
http://www.energyfuels.com
This e-mail is intended for the exclusive use of person(s) mentioned as the recipient(s). This message and any attached files with it are confidential and may contain
privileged or proprietary information. if you are not the intended recipient(s) please delete this message and notify the sender. You may not use, distribute print or
copy this message if you are not the intended recipient(s).
From: Dean Henderson <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 10:36 AM
To: Kathy Weinel <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Time frame for Nitrate CACME meeting
[Quoted text hidden]
https://maiLgoogle.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=50c70a6199&jsver=k8XTJ0J1kuE.enAcb1=gmail fe_180606.07_p4&view=pt&search=inbox&th=163falfa12ba2839&sir