DRC-2018-012874 - 0901a06880951b09

Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
225 Union Blvd. Suite 600
Lakewood, CO, US, 80228
303 974 2140
www.energyfuels.com
December 5, 2018 PRC-201J-Ow-674- Div e Waste Management and Radiation Control
Sent VIA E-MAIL AND EXPRESS DELIVERY
Scott Anderson,
Director of Waste Management and Radiation Control
State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality
195 North 1950 West
P.O. Box 144880
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4880
DEC - 7 2018
Re: Transmittal of Plan and Time Schedule under Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit
UGW370004 Part I.G.4 (c) White Mesa Mill (the "Mill")
Dear Mr. Anderson:
This letter transmits Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.'s ("EFRI' s") Plan and Time Schedule pursuant to
State of Utah Groundwater Discharge Permit UGW370004 (the "Permit") Part I.G.4(c) for MW-24 for the third
quarter of 2018. Part I.G.2 of the Permit provides that out-of-compliance ("00C") status exists when the
concentration of a pollutant in two consecutive samples from a compliance monitoring point exceeds a
groundwater compliance limit ("GWCL"). While consecutive exceedance have been noted in MW-24 and other
wells at the site, a plan and time schedule have not been required or appropriate in light of other actions
currently being undertaken by EFRI or in light of other reports submitted by EFRI.
This Plan covers thallium in MW-24 that was identified as being in violation of Part I.G.2 of the Permit, in the
Third Quarter 2018 Exceedance Notice, dated November 14, 2018. In addition, this Plan and the associated
SAR will address the additional constituents of cadmium and field pH as noted in the Plan and Time Schedule.
Please contact me if you have any questions or require any further information.
Yours very truly,
ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES (USA) INC.
Kathy Weinel
Quality Assurance Manager
cc: Paul Goranson
Terry Slade
Scott Bakken
David Frydenlund
Logan Shumway
WHITE MESA MILL
State of Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit UGW370004
Plan and Time Schedule
Under Part I.G.4 (d)
For
Exceedances in MW-24 in the Third Quarter of 2018
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
225 Union Boulevard, Suite 600
Lakewood, CO 80228
December 5, 2018
1. INTRODUCTION
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. ("EFRI") operates the White Mesa Uranium Mill (the "Mill"), located
near Blanding Utah, under State of Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit UGW370004 (the "Permit").
This is the plan and time schedule (the "Plan") required under Part I.G.4(c) of the Permit relating to
violations of Part I.G.2 of the Permit for MW-24 for the third quarter of 2018. Part I.G.2 of the Permit
provides that out-of-compliance status exists when the concentration of a pollutant in two consecutive
samples from a compliance monitoring point exceeds a groundwater compliance limit ("GWCL") in Table
2 of the Permit. While consecutive exceedances have been noted in MW-24 and other wells at the site, a
plan and time schedule and Source Assessment Report ("SAR") have not been required or appropriate in
light of other actions currently being undertaken by EFRI or in light of other reports submitted by EFRI,
and as determined by Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control ("DWMRC") Staff.
Specifically, consecutive exceedances which occurred in previous reporting periods are discussed in the
SARs submitted to DWMRC August 20, 2017 and June 25, 2018. Additionally, pH was addressed in
reports dated November 9, 2012 and December 7, 2012. A description of the other actions and reports
which have affected the requirement to submit a plan and time schedule are as follows:
1. Nitrate + nitrite and chloride in monitoring wells at the site have been the subject of ongoing
investigations at the Mill. Based on the results of the previous investigations, EFRI and the
Director of Waste Management and Radiation Control (the "Director") acknowledge that it has not
been possible to date to determine the source(s), cause(s), attribution, magnitudes of contribution,
and proportion(s) of the local nitrate + nitrite and chloride in groundwater. EFRI submitted a
Corrective Action Plan ("CAP") in February 2012 for nitrate + nitrite and chloride in groundwater.
The CAP was approved on December 12, 2012 and the activities associated with the CAP are on-
going. Based on information provided by DWMRC in teleconferences on April 27, and May 2,
2011, due to the ongoing activities and actions, the 30-day plan and schedule for assessment is not
required for nitrate + nitrite and chloride exceedances at this time.
2. As discussed in previous quarterly groundwater sampling reports, the background levels and
GWCLs for pH were established based on eight or more quarters of laboratory data, which are
historically higher than field data. EFRI' s letter to the Director dated January 31, 2011 proposed
the recalculation of the GWCLs for field pH. Following the statistical evaluation of pH data by
EFRI' s geochemical consultant, 1NTERA, Inc., EFRI compared the Mill' s groundwater pH data
from Q2 2011 and noted that all of the June 2011 groundwater results, and many of the other results
from Q2 2011, were already outside the revised GWCLs that were to be proposed in the June 30,
2011 letter. Pursuant to teleconferences with DWMRC on December 5, and December 19, 2011,
EFRI submitted a Work Plan and Schedule on January 20, 2012 and a revised plan based on
DWMRC comments on April 13, 2012. Based on the approved Work Plan and Time Schedule,
EFRI and DWMRC entered into a Stipulated Consent Agreement ("SCA") dated July 12, 2012.
The SCA required the completion of the pH Report and the Pyrite Investigation and associated
report. The pH Report and Pyrite Investigation Report were submitted November 9, 2012 and
December 7, 2012 respectively. By letter dated April 25, 2013, DWMRC accepted the conclusions
that the out-of-compliance results for pH are due to background effects within the aquifer matrix
and are not caused by Mill activities. DWMRC also approved the recalculation of the GWCLs. As
a result, the 30-day plan and schedule for assessment is not required for field pH exceedances.
1
3. A Plan and Time Schedule will not be prepared for monitoring wells with two successive
exceedances in if successive exceedances were reported in a previous quarter and were included in
the Source Assessment Reports ("SARs"), submitted August 20, 2017 and June 25, 2018. A Plan
and Time Schedule will not be submitted for those constituents covered by the previously
mentioned SARs, because the conclusions and actions delineated in those reports were accepted by
DWMRC.
Chloroform and methylene chloride are the subject of the ongoing chloroform pumping program and are
covered by State of Utah Notice of Violation ("NOV") and Groundwater Corrective Action Order ("CAO")
State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality ("UDEQ") Docket No. UGW-20-01. As a result, the
30-day plan and schedule for assessment of chloroform and methylene chloride exceedances is not required.
The Permit was originally issued in March 2005, at which time GWCLs were set on an interim basis, based
on fractions of State Ground Water Quality Standards or the equivalent, without reference to natural
background at the Mill site. The Permit also required that EFRI prepare a background groundwater quality
report to evaluate all historic data for the purposes of establishing background groundwater quality at the
site and developing GWCLs under the Permit.
As required by then Part I.H.3 of the Permit, EFRI submitted the following to the Director:
• A Revised Background Groundwater Quality Report: Existing Wells For Denison Mines (USA)
Corp.' s Mill Site, San Juan County, Utah, October 2007, prepared by INTERA, Inc. (the "Existing
Wells Background Report");
• A Revised Addendum: -- Evaluation of Available Pre-Operational and Regional Background Data,
Background Groundwater Quality Report: Existing Wells For Denison Mines (USA) Corp.'s Mill
Site, San Juan County, Utah, November 16, 2007, prepared by INTERA, Inc. (the "Regional
Background Report"); and
• A Revised Addendum: -- Background Groundwater Quality Report: New Wells For Denison Mines
(USA) Corp.'s Mill Site, San Juan County, Utah, April 30, 2008, prepared by INTERA, Inc. (the
"New Wells Background Report, and together with the Existing Wells Background Report and the
Regional Background Report, the "Background Reports").
Based on a review of the Background Reports and other information and analyses the Director re-opened
the Permit and modified the GWCLs to be equal to the mean concentration of background for each
constituent on an intrawell basis plus two standard deviations or the equivalent. The modified GWCLs
became effective on January 20, 2010. As a result of the issuance of a revised GWDP on January 19, 2018,
which sets revised GWCLs, requirements to perform accelerated monitoring under Part I.G.1 of the
previous GWDP ceased effective on January 19, 2018, and the effect of the issuance of the revised GWDP
was to create a "clean slate" for all constituents in all wells going forward.
Part I.G.4 c) of the GWDP states, with respect to exceedances of GWCLs, "that the Permittee shall prepare
and submit within 30 calendar days to the Executive Secretary a plan and a time schedule for assessment
of the sources, extent and potential dispersion of the contamination, and an evaluation of potential remedial
action to restore and maintain groundwater quality to insure that Permit limits will not be exceeded at the
compliance monitoring point and that DMT or BAT will be reestablished." Pursuant to this requirement,
EFRI has submitted Plans and Time Schedules and associated SARs to address previous dual exceedances
(as required in light of other actions currently being undertaken by EFRI and as determined by DW1VIRC
Staff and stated in teleconferences with EFRI on April 27 and May 2, 2011).
2
This Plan covers the constituent (thallium in MW-24) that was identified as being in violation of Part I.G.2
of the Permit, in the Third Quarter 2018 Exceedance Notice, dated November 14, 2018. In addition, this
Plan and the associated SAR will address cadmium and field pH in MW-24. These exceedances were
addressed in the SAR for MW-24 submitted June 24, 2016 and the pH Report and Pyrite Investigation
Report respectively, however, both have exceeded the recalculated GWCLs due to statistically significant
trends noted in these previous studies.
It is important to note that beryllium, nickel and fluoride have also exceeded their GWCLs in MW-24, but
will not be voluntarily addressed at this time for the following reasons:
• Beryllium, nickel, and fluoride have not exceeded their GWCLs in two consecutive samples;
• Beryllium and nickel do not have enough detected data at this time to complete meaningful
statistical analyses; and
• Fluoride analyses have been problematic in Mill samples due to analytical interferences. EFRI is
investigating the possibility that the fluoride detection in MW-24 is anomalous and caused by a
laboratory issue rather than an accurate sample analysis.
2. CONSTITUENTS AND WELLS SUBJECT TO THIS PLAN
The following constituents are covered by this Plan:
Table 2
Constituents and Wells Subject to this Plan
Constituent Monitoring
Event
POC Well GWCL
(ug/L)
Result
(ug/L)
Thallium Q2 2018
Q3 2018
MW-24 2.01 2.44
2.18
Cadmium Q2 2018
Q3 2018
MW-24 6.43 6.97
5.59
Field pH Q2 2018
Q3 2018
MW-24 5.03 4.45
5.30
It should be noted that the Third Quarter 2018 Exceedance Notice identifies a number of wells, with
consecutive exceedances of other constituents. Those constituents are not included in this Plan, for the
reasons stated in Section 1 above and in the Q3 2018 Exceedance Notice. This Plan and the associated
SAR address field pH, cadmium and thallium in MW-24.
With respect to pH, EFRI and DWMRC entered into a Stipulated Consent Agreement ("SCA") dated July
12, 2012. The SCA required the completion of the pH Report and the Pyrite Investigation and associated
report. The pH Report and Pyrite Investigation Report were submitted November 9, 2012 and December
7, 2012 respectively. By letter dated April 25, 2013, DWMRC accepted the conclusions that the out-of-
compliance results and site-wide decrease in pH are due to background effects within the aquifer matrix
and are not caused by Mill activities. The site-wide decrease in pH due to background effects within the
aquifer matrix has continued, and as a result, EFRI has included pH in MW-24 in this Plan.
3
3. CATEGORIES FOR ANALYSIS
Previously EFRI has categorized wells and constituents in several categories as follows:
• Constituents Potentially Impacted by Decreasing pH Trends Across the Site
• Newly Installed Wells with Interim GWCLs
• Constituents in Wells with Previously Identified Rising Trends
• Pumping Wells
• Other Constituents
The constituents and wells in Table 2 can be separated into 2 different categories as follows:
3.1 Constituents Potentially Impacted by Decreasing pH Trends Across the Site
EFRI has observed a decreasing trend in pH in a number of monitoring wells across the Mill site. See the
discussions in the MW-24 SAR dated June 24, 2016, the pH Report dated November 9, 2012 and the Pyrite
Investigation Report dated December 7, 2012. The pH Report specifically noted that wells MW-03A, MW-
11, MW-12, MW-14, MW-15, MW-17, MW-18, MW-22, MW-24, MW-25, MW-30, MW-32, and MW-
37 showed significantly decreasing trends in pH. Review of the pH time plots included in the pH Report
indicate a decreasing trend in pH in most wells across the site. By letter dated April 25, 2013, DWMRC
accepted the conclusions that the decreasing trends for pH are due to background effects within the aquifer
matrix and are not caused by Mill activities.
The mobility of thallium and cadmium in groundwater is sensitive to decreases in pH.
3.2.1 Constituents in Wells with Previously Identified Rising Trends
Field pH in MW-24 falls within the third category; constituents in wells with previously identified rising
trends (in the case of field pH it is a decreasing trend). A decreasing trend in field pH in MW-24 was
identified in Table 10, of the New Wells Background Report (INTERA, 2008) and in the analyses
completed as part of the SAR dated June 24, 2016 and the pH Report dated November 2012. The trend
identified in the Background Report was not statistically significant, however the trend identified in both
the 2016 SAR and pH Report was statistically significant. Assessment of field pH in MW-24 will follow
the process previously used for other wells in this category.
Preliminary analysis of the indicator parameters in MW-24 shows that chloride, sulfate, and uranium are
not trending and fluoride is exhibiting a significant increasing trend.
4. PLAN
4.1. General
This Plan is a plan and time schedule for assessment of the source, extent and potential dispersion of the
contamination, and an evaluation of potential remedial action to restore and maintain groundwater quality
to assure that Permit limits will not be exceeded at the compliance monitoring point and that, to the extent
applicable, discharge minimization technology and best available technology will be reestablished.
Given the analyses in the Background Reports and the recent analyses in the pH report and previous SARs,
EFRI believes that the third quarter exceedances are likely due to background influences.
4
4.2. Assessment for Each Category
The approach and scope of review for the categories in Section 3.1 and 3.2 above, is described in more
detail below.
Given the recent analyses in the Background Reports, SARs, pH Report, and Pyrite Report and other recent
information relating to the Chloroform and Nitrate/Chloride investigations at the site, EFRI believes that
all of the exceedances are likely due to background influences (including a natural decreasing trend in pH
across the site, changing water levels in some wells and other factors), disruption of the aquifer by pumping,
and/or the geochemical influences of the existing chloroform and nitrate/chloride plumes.
Therefore, the first step in the analysis will be to perform an assessment of the potential sources for each
exceedance to determine whether the exceedance is due to background influences or Mill activities. If an
exceedance is determined to be due to background influences then it will not be necessary to perform any
further evaluations on the extent and potential dispersion of the contamination or to perform an evaluation
of potential remedial actions. Monitoring will continue, and where appropriate revised GWCLs will be
proposed to reflect changes in background conditions at the site.
However, if any of the exceedances are determined to be caused by Mill activities, then EFRI will proceed
to the next step and will consider the extent and potential dispersion of the contamination, and will perform
an evaluation of potential remedial actions to restore and maintain groundwater quality to ensure that Permit
limits will not be exceeded at the compliance monitoring point.
This two-step approach is necessary, because, in light of the varied background conditions at the site and
previously identified background trends, it can't be assumed that consecutive exceedances of a constituent
in a well represents contamination that has been introduced to the groundwater. It is first necessary to
establish whether or not the exceedances represent background influences.
4.2.1 Constituents Potentially Impacted by Decreasing pH Trends Across the Site
As mentioned above, EFRI has observed a decreasing trend in pH in a number of monitoring wells across
the Mill site. The mobility of thallium and cadmium in groundwater is sensitive to decreases in pH.
The primary focus of the source assessment for thallium and cadmium in MW-24 will be two-fold. First,
EFRI will determine whether or not there is any new information that would suggest that the previous
analyses conducted in the New Wells Background Report, the SAR, or the pH Report have changed since
the date of that Report. This analysis will include the following:
(i) A geochemical analysis that will evaluate the behavior of the constituents in MW-24 to determine
if there are any changes in the behavior of indicator constituents, such as chloride, sulfate, fluoride
and uranium since the date of the Existing Wells Background Report, the SARs, and the pH
Report, that may suggest a change in the behavior of that well since the date of that Report;
(ii) If necessary, a mass balance analysis that will evaluate the observed concentrations in light of the
concentrations in Mill tailings and the presence or absence of any mounding at the location of the
well in question; and
Second, a pH analysis will be performed for thallium and cadmium that will:
(iii) Analyze the expected impact from the decrease in pH on the concentration of thallium and
cadmium, based on currently available information.
5
The foregoing analyses (both steps) will be included in the SAR.
If no significant changes are identified that would suggest that the previous analysis conducted in the New
Wells Background Report, the SAR and the pH Report, has changed other than what would be expected
from decreasing trends in pH, then EFRI will propose changes to the GWCL for thallium and cadmium in
MW-24 to better reflect background concentrations at the site.
If significant changes are identified that cannot be attributed to changes in pH or other natural phenomena,
then EFRI will propose to the Director further analysis that may be required in order to identify the source
and the extent and potential dispersion of the contamination, as well as potential remedial actions.
4.2.2 Constituents With Pre-Existing Rising Trends
It was well known at the time of setting the current GWCLs that certain constituents had rising trends. On
page 3 of the Existing Well Background Report, INTERA concluded:
"There are numerous cases of both increasing and decreasing trends in constituents in
upgradient, far downgradient, and Mill site wells, which provide evidence that there are
natural forces at work that are impacting groundwater quality across the entire site.
In almost all cases where there are increasing trends in constituents in wells at the site,
there are increasing trends in those constituents in upgradent wells. Furthermore, and more
importantly, in no case is there any evidence in the wells in question of increasing trends
in chloride, which is considered the most mobile and best indicator of potential tailings cell
leakage at the site. We consider the combination of these factors to be conclusive evidence
that all increasing trends at the site are caused by natural forces and not by Mill activities".
The Groundwater Data Preparation and Statistical Process Flow for Calculating Groundwater Protection
Standards, White Mesa Mill Site, San Juan County, Utah, (the "Flowsheet") which was approved by the
Director, states in the final decision box, for circumstances where the data indicate an increasing trend to
consider a modified approach to GWCLs. If necessary, a modified approach may be submitted as part of
the SAR.
A decreasing trend in pH was identified by 1NTERA in Section 2.5.6 of the New Wells Background Report,
significantly decreasing trends in MW-24 field pH were identified during the pH Report and the 2016 SAR.
The first step in the analysis will be to perform an assessment of the potential sources for decreasing field
pH in MW-24 to determine whether the exceedances are due to background influences or Mill activities.
This assessment will include an analysis of sulfate and field pH and the other indicator parameters chloride,
fluoride, and uranium to determine if the behavior of the water in MW-24 has changed since the time of the
Background Reports. If the exceedances are determined to be caused by background influences, then it is
not necessary to perform any further evaluations on the extent and potential dispersion of the contamination
or to perform an evaluation of potential remedial actions. Monitoring will continue, and revised GWCLs
will be proposed to reflect changes in background conditions at the site.
The revised GWCL process will include a statistical analysis of field pH in MW-24 using the methods
described in the Existing Wells Background Report (INTERA, 2007) and the approved Flowsheet.
6
As mentioned in previous SARs and the pH report, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
("EPA") has recognized the need to update compliance limits periodically to reflect changes to background
conditions.
In 2009 guidance, EPA states:
"We recommend that other reviews of background also take place periodically.
These include the following situations:
• When periodically updating background, say every 1-2 years
• When performing a 5-10 year permit review
During these reviews, all observations designated as background should be evaluated to ensure
that they still adequately reflect current natural or baseline groundwater conditions. In
particular, the background samples should be investigated for apparent trends or outliers.
Statistical outliers may need to be removed, especially if an error or discrepancy can be
identified, so that subsequent compliance tests can be improved. If trends are indicated, a
change in the statistical method or approach may be warranted."
and
"Site-wide changes in the underlying aquifer should be identifiable as similar trends in both
upgradient and compliance wells. In this case, it might be possible to remove a common trend
from both the background and compliance point wells and to perform interwell testing on the
trend residuals."
(EPA 530/R-09-007, March 2009, Statistical Analysis Of Groundwater Monitoring Data At RCRA
Facilities Unified Guidance, Environmental Protection Agency, Office Of Resource Conservation And
Recovery.)
4.3. Experts Reports to be Prepared
The results of the statistical analysis and, if appropriate, recalculation of the GWCL will be compiled as a
SAR that will be submitted to DWMRC within 90 days of the approval of this Plan. The SAR will detail
the results of all analyses to be performed and the conclusions to be drawn from such analyses, including
proposed revision to the existing GWCL. Specifically, the SAR will follow the format of the originally
submitted SAR (October 10, 2012) and will include discussions, results and conclusions of the analyses
and appendices containing the following:
A geochemical analysis
Comparison of calculated and measured TDS for samples with complete major ions
Charge balance calculations
Descriptive statistics
Box plots to identify extreme outliers
Histograms and Shapiro Wilk test for normality
Regression or Mann Kendall trend analysis
Proposed Revised GWCLs
7
A geochemical analysis of Indicator Parameters
Descriptive Statistics
Box plots to identify extreme outliers
Histograms and Shapiro Wilk test for normality
Regression and/or Mann Kendall trend analysis
5. TIME SCHEDULE
The SAR will be submitted to the Director within 90 days after approval of this Plan. The SAR
contemplated by this submission may be combined with any subsequent SARs resulting from other Plans
and Schedules for other out of compliance constituents, as necessary.
6. CONCLUSION
Given the varied background groundwater quality at the site, it cannot be assumed that consecutive
exceedances of a constituent in a monitoring well means that contamination has been introduced to
groundwater in that well.
With respect to field pH in MW-24, the previously identified trend suggests that the third quarter 2018
exceedances are a continuation of the statistically significant decreasing pH trend identified in the June 24,
2016 SAR and the pH Report. It has been established that the continued decreasing trend of field pH in
MW-24 is not inconsistent with natural background, and in fact was accepted as natural background for
purposes of setting the revised GWCLs in June 2016.
The exceedances of cadmium and thallium represent impacts due to a decreasing pH (statistically
significant).
Background at the Mill site was recently thoroughly studied in the Background Reports, the SAR, the pH
report, and the University of Utah Study. The Background Reports, the SAR, the pH report and the
University of Utah Study concluded that groundwater at the site has not been impacted by Mill operations.
All of these studies also acknowledged that there are natural influences at play at the site that have given
rise to increasing water levels and general variability of background groundwater chemistry at the site.
EFRI maintains that it is not practicable to redo the University of Utah Study and comprehensive
Background Reports each time a monitoring well shows consecutive exceedances, particularly where the
exceedances are consistent with those recent analyses. The focus should be on identifying any changes in
the circumstances identified in those studies. Therefore, EFRI will conduct a geochemical analysis of field
pH, thallium and cadmium in MW-24 and assess indicator parameters to confirm that the out-of-compliance
status is due to variations in background. The geochemical analysis, and revision of the GWCL if necessary,
will be consistent with the Flowsheet.
8