DRC-2021-007429 - 0901a06880ea0288

State of Utah
SPENCER J. COX
Governor
DEIDRE HENDERSON
Lieutenant Governor
Department of
Environmental Quality
Kimberly D. Shelley Executive Director
DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
AND RADIATION CONTROL
Douglas J. Hansen Director
Div of War4-te Management
and Radietlon Control
MAY 1 9 2021
MEMORANDUM
TO: Phil Goble P116 c5-- /1/202-
FROM: Dean Henderson
DATE: May 19, 2021
SUBJECT: Review of the February 10, 2021 Annual Seeps and Springs Sampling Report for Energy Fuels
Resources (USA), Inc. White Mesa Uranium Mill, near Blanding, Utah
On February 16, 2021 the Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control ("DWMRC") received the
February 10, 2021 Annual Seep and Springs Sampling Report ("Report") [eDocs: DRC-2021-002283] for the
Energy Fuels Resources (USA), Inc. ("EFR") White Mesa Uranium Milt ("Mill"), near Blanding, Utah. For the
review of this Report the following regulatory enforcement documents will be used:
• White Mesa Uranium Mill Ground Water Quality Assurance Plan ("QAP").
Revision 7.5, dated June 6, 2019.
• Groundwater Discharge Permit No. UGW370004 ("Permit"). Permit version that was signed on March
19, 2019.
• Sampling Plan for Seeps and Springs In the Vicinity of the White Mesa Uranium Mill. Revision 2. July 8,
2016 ("Plan").
• Utah Department of Environmental Quality Division of Radiation Control Guidance for Groundwater
Split Sample Collection at Uranium Mill Operations. August 7, 2007.
Summary of Compliance
EFR informed the DWMRC in a letter dated June 1, 2020, that EFR would be sampling the seeps and springs on
June 16, 2020 (DRC-2020-010821). This letter providing a 15 day notice prior to sampling as required in Section
3 of the Plan.
The Report met all of the following reporting requirements in Section 6 of the Plan:
1) Documented the sampling event by means of providing the field sheets recorded at the time of sampling.
2) Provided copies of all field measurements and laboratory results.
3) Provided a water table contour map that includes a water table elevation of all groundwater monitoring
wells at the facility (3rd quarter 2020 water level measurements) and the elevations of the phreatic surface
observed at each of the seep and springs sampled.
- 4) Provided an evaluation and interpretation of the groundwater quality data collected.
DRC-20 195 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
On June 16, 2020 DWMRC staff Dean Henderson and Phil Goble observed the EFR staff sample Cottonwood
Spring, Entrance Spring, Ruin Spring, Westwater Spring. DWMRC staff collected a split sample with the EFR
staff of Entrance Spring and Westwater Spring. The EFR staff had previously collected a sample of Westwater
spring on March 25, 2020. At that time Coral Canyon and Corral Seep were found to be dry and therefore no
water sample could be collected. DWMRC staff field observations are documented in a memorandum (DRC-
2020-020081) and closeout letter (DRC-2020-011964).
Based on DWMRC staff observing the EFR staff perform the sampling and monitoring and after the DWMRC
review of the Report, it appears that EFR appropriately followed the QAP and Plan.
Duplicate Sample Comparison
Comparisons of duplicate samples analytical results are summarized in Tables 6 in Attachment 1 below. To
determine if sample results between two samples from the same laboratory are comparable, a relative percent
difference ("RPD") of 20% is acceptable (DRC 2007). To determine if sample results between two samples from
two different laboratories are comparable a RPD of 30% is acceptable (DRC 2007). For radiologics, to determine
if sample results between two samples or two laboratories are comparable, a replicate error ratio ("RER") of < 2 is
acceptable (DRC 2007).
EFR Duplicate Sample Comparison
EFR collected a duplicate of Cottonwood Spring and identified it as "Back Spring". The RER comparisons for
gross alpha < 2. The RPD comparisons between the analytical results were all below 20% with the exception of
TDS at 39.3% (862 mg/1 and 1280 mg/1). Since 2009 annual TDS results for Cottonwood Spring have ranged
from 900 to 1100 mg/1 and that TDS analytical results are close to historical concentrations it is recommended
that no further action is necessary to resolve this RPD exceedance. All other the analytical results are comparable
(see Table 6).
DWMRC Sample Comparison to EFR
The RPD comparison between the analytical results for the DWMRC Entrance Spring and Westwater Spring
samples and EFR Entrance Spring and Westwater Spring samples were below 30% with the exception of the
following contaminates summarized in the table below:
Contaminates GWQS EFR Entrance Spring
Results
DWMRC Entrance
Spring Results
RPD
Nitrate 10 mg/1 2.46 mg/1 1.8 mg/1 31%
Manganese 800 pg/1 56.3 ttgn 29 ttg/1 64%
EFR Westwater
Spring Results
DWMRC Westwater
Spring Results
Manganese 800 ttg/1 35.4 ttg/1 430 ttg/1 169.6%
Uranium 30 ttga 12.9 ttga 3.5 ttg/1 114.6%
Sulfate none 307 mg/1 480 mg/1 44%
Sodium none 245 mg/1 160 mg/1 42%
Potassium none 5.28 mg/1 3.4 mg/1 43.3%
None of the above contaminates in the table above exceeded GWQS and concentration were within or very close
to historical concentrations. Therefore, it is recommended that no further action is necessary to resolve this RPD
exceedance. All other the analytical results are comparable (see Table 6).
The RER comparison between the gross alpha analytical results for the DWMRC Entrance Spring and Westwater
Spring sample and EFR Entrance Spring and Westwater Spring sample were <2 and comparable.
Page 3
Mill Operations Impact on the Seeps and Springs.
The analytical results for the 2020 seeps and springs monitoring event are summarized in Tables 1 through 6 in
Attachment 1 below.
Cottonwood Spring
EFR collected a duplicate sample of Cottonwood Spring and identified as Back Spring.
Nutrients ammonia and nitrate were concentration were non-detected typical of historic concentrations. The only
metals detected was uranium below its GWQS and typical of historic concentrations. No VOCs were detected.
Major ions were detected. A comparison of the historic data since 2009 data shows that the concentrations of most
detected analytes remained approximately the same with no concentrations exceeding GWQS. Overall, the data
reported Cottonwood Spring sample results appear to show no indication of Mill impact (see tables 1 and 2
below).
Entrance Spring
DWMRC collected a split a sample of Entrance Spring with EFR.
Ammonia had non-detectable concentration and nitrate had detectable concentrations well below GWQS and
typical of historic concentrations.
The only metals detected were manganese, molybdenum, selenium, and uranium that were below GWQS and
typical of historic concentrations.
No VOCs concentrations detected.
Gross alpha was below GWQS. Major ions were detected. Historic data since 2009 data shows that the
concentrations of most detected analytes remained approximately the same. Overall, the data reported for
Entrance Spring sample results appear to show no indication of Mill impact (see tables 1 and 3 below).
Ruin Spring
Ammonia had a non-detectable concentration and nitrate had a detectable concentration well below GWQS and
typical of historic concentrations.
The only metals detected was molybdenum, selenium, and uranium. None exceeded GWQS and typical of
historic concentrations.
No VOCs concentrations detected.
Gross alpha was below GWQS. Major ions were detected. A comparison of the historic data since 2009 shows
that the concentrations of most detected analytes remained approximately the same. Overall, the data reported for
Ruin Spring sample results appear to show no indication of Mill impact (see tables 1 and 4 below).
Westwater Spring
EFR collected a sample at Westwater spring on March 25, 2020 and DWMRC staff collected a split sample with
EFR June 16, 2020.
Page 4
Ammonia and nitrate had non-detectable concentrations with the exception of ammonia in the March 25, 2020
sample that was well below GWQS. All had typical historic concentrations.
The only metals detected in the EFR May 25, 2020 sample was iron, manganese, and uranium. None exceeded
GWQS and typical of historic concentrations. The only metals detected in the June 16, 2020 EFR and DWMRC
samples was cobalt, iron, manganese, molybdenum, selenium, and uranium. All metal concentration were below
GWQS and typical of historic concentrations.
No VOC were detected, and gross alpha was below GWQS. Major ions were detected. Overall, the data reported
for Ruin Spring sample results appear to show no indication of Mill impact (see tables 1 and 5 below).
Conclusions on Compliance with the Permit and QAP
Per the Division review it appears that the Report complies with Permit, QAP, and Plan. Therefore, a letter will
be drafted notifying EFR of the review and closing out of for the Seeps and Springs 2020 Monitoring Report.
Page 5
References
Energy Fuels, White Mesa Uranium Mill Ground Water Quality Assurance Plan, Revision 7., June 5, 2019.
Sampling Plan for Seeps and Springs In the Vicinity of the White Mesa Uranium Mill. Revision 2. July 8, 2016.
Energy Fuels, White Mesa Uranium Mill Annual Seeps and Springs Sampling, June 1, 2020. (DRC-2020-010821)
Energy Fuels, White Mesa Uranium Mill 2020 Annual Seeps and Springs Sampling Report, February 10, 2021.
(DRC-2021-002283)
Utah Department of Environmental Quality Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control,
Memorandum, 2020 Annual Seeps and Springs Monitoring, June 29, 2020. (DRC-2020-020081)
Utah Department of Environmental Quality Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control, 2020 Annual
Seeps and Springs Monitoring Event Closeout Letter, July 13, 2020. (DRC-2020-011964)
Utah Department of Environmental Quality Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control,
Memorandum, 2020 Annual Seeps and Springs Monitoring, June 29, 2020. (DRC-2020-020081)
Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Groundwater Discharge Permit No. UGW370004 Permit version that
was signed on March 19, 2019.
Utah Department of Environmental Quality Division of Radiation Control Guidance for Groundwater Split
Sample Collection at Uranium Mill Operations, August 7, 2007.
Page 6
Attachment 1
Tables 1 through 6
Table 1
Summary of The 2020 Seeps and Springs Sample Analytical Data
(1) Contaminants (2)GWQS (for
comparison purposes only)
Cottonwood
Spring
-- BaCk Spring (EFR . Duplicate of
Cottonwood Sp mg)
Entrance . Spring (EFR
sample)
Entrance
Spring (DWMRC
sample)
Rui'n Sprng i Westwater
Seep
Westwater
Seep (EFR sample)
Westwater
Seep (DWMRC
sample)
6/16/2020 6/16/2020 6/16/2020 6/16/2020 3/25/2020 6/16/2020
Ammonia (as N) 25 <0.05 <0.05
Nutrients (mi/L)
1.8 <0.1 <0.05 0.0593 <0.05 <0.05
Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) 10 <0.1 <0.1 2.46 1.8 1.39 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Heavy Metals (ig/L)
Arsenic 50 <5 <5 <5.0 <5.0 <5 <5 <5 <5.0 Beryllium 4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.0 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.0 Cadmium 5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.0 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.0
Chromium 100 <25 <25 <25 <3.0 <25 <25 <25 <3.0 Cobalt 730 <10 <10 <10 <1.0 <10 <10 <10 1.0 Copper 1,300 <10 <10 <10 <2.0 <10 <10 <10 <2.0 Iron 11,000 <30 <30 <30 <100 <30 401 <100 Lead 15 <1 <1 <1 <1.0 <1 <1 <1 <1.0
Manganese 800 <10 <10 56.3 29 <10 369 56.3 430 Mercury 2 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.2 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <.2 Molybdenum 40 <10 <10 <10 3.7 18.7 <10 <10 3.5 Nickel 100 <20 <20 <20 <2.0 <20 <20 <20 <2.0 Selenium 50 <5 <5 15 16 10.5 <5 15 <5.0 Silver 100 <10 <10 <10 <1.0 <10 <10 <10 <1.0
Thallium 2 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.0 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.0
Tin 17,000 <100 <100 <100 <10 <100 <100 <100 <10 Uranium 30 10.5 10.7 24.7 25 9.32 2.34 12.9 3.5 Vanadium 60 <15 <15 <15 <5.0 <15 <20 <20 <5.0 Zinc 5,000 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
Radiologics (pCi/L)
Gross Alpha 1510.256+1-0.209 -0.00212+/-0.191 10.453+1-0.229 2.54+/-1.58 -0.423+/-0.231 0.559+/-0.300 10.119+/-0.191 2.86±2.4
VOC (pg/L
Acetone 700 <20 <20 <20 <10 <20 <20 <20 <10.0
Benzene 5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
2-Butanone (MEK) 4,000 <20 <20 <20 <6.0 <20 <20 <20 <6.0 Carbon Tetrachloride 5 <1.0 <1.0 ,0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Chloroform 70 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Chloromethane 30 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <2.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <2.0 Dichloromethane 5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <2.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <2.0 Naphthalene 100 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Tetrahydrofuran (THF) 46 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <7.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <7.0
Toluene 1,000 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Xylenes (total) 10,000 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <2.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <2.0
Others
Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 7.09 7.09 7.73 7.5 7.19 7.32 6.4 7.9 Fluoride (mg/L) 4 0.233 0.24 0.638 0.54 0.473 0.555 0.638 <0.5
Chloride (mg/L) NG 146 147 76.7 75 25.8 26.6 76.7 36
Sulfate (mg/L) NG 417 424 317 300 474 307 317 480
TDS (mg/L) NG 860 1,280 964 870 1,240 1,200 964 1,100
General Inorganics Listed in Part I.E.1.(c) 2)(ii)
Carbonate (mg/L) NG <1.0 <1 NA <1 <1 <1 NA
Bicarbonate (mg/L) NG 280 284 242 NA 186 270 242 NA
Sodium (mg/L) NG 273 282 108 91 139 117 108 160 Potassium (mg/L) NG 7.14 7.23 4.31 3.8 4.09 1.76 4.31 3.4 Magnesium (mg/L) NG 32.9 33.7 45.1 42 36.9 30.8 45.1 44 Calcium (mg/L) NG 120 124 144 120 169 118 144 160 Total anions (meq/L) NG 18.4 18.7 13.7 NA 14.2 12.6 13.7 NA Total cations (meq/L) NG 20.8 21.4 15.7 NA 17.6 13.6 15.7 NA
DWMRC = Utah Division of Waste Management and Radian Control
EFR = Energy Fuels Resources
NA = Not analyzed.
Shaded = exceeded Ground Water Quafitty Standared (GWQS). However, the GWQS are for compahson perposes only and are not compliance standards for this spring. 1. Contaminants listed in Table 2 of the Groundwater Quality Assurance Plan for EFR. 2. The Ground Water Qualtity Stantandards (GWQS) are for compahson perposes only and are not compliance standards for this spring.
(4)GWCtS (for comparison only) 7/25/1977
(1)D&M EFR
11/10/1977 7/7/2009
(3)Contaminants
Ammonia (as N) 25 0.13 <0 1 <0.05 Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) 10 0.06 0.261 0.1
Arsenic 50 T<10 NA <0.05 Beryllium „4 .1`1!? N/,'k <0.5
Cadmium 5 T4 T2 <0.5
Chromium 100 T20 "r<10 <25 Cobalt 730 NA NA <10
Copper 1,300 r<5 <10 iron , Lead
11,000
„18
3,,200 11p t,<50 <30 <1 Manganese 800 1100 60 <10
Mercury „ ? T2
T.1 <0.5 Molybdenum
Nickel
40.
.190
<19
NA
NA-
NA „
<10
<20 Selenium 50 140 NA <5
Silver 100 4 NA <10 Thallium 2 NA NA <0.5 Tin 17,000 NA NA <100 Uranium 30 4 niA 8.42 Vanadium , 60 6 <io <19. Zinc 5,000 60 156 <10
Gross Alpha 15 10.2±3.1 NA 10.3+/-0.5
Acetone 700 NA NA <20
Benzene „ NA N!N. <1.0 2-Butanone (MEK) 4,000 NA NA <20
Carbon Tetrachloride 5 NA INV! . <1.0 Chloroform 70 NA NA <1.0 Cnloromethane 39 NA N!N. „ <1.0
Dichloromethane 5 NA NA <1.0 Naphthalene 100 NA 1•!, . <1.9 Tetrahydrofuran (THF) 46 NA NA <1.0 Toluene _ 1,000 NA NA <1;p
Xylenes (total) 10,000 NA NA <1.0

1 151DRC EFR

07/06/10 7/7/10
<0.05
0.08 <0.1
EFR EFR
5/31/2011 7/13/2011
<0.05 <0.05
0.1 <0 1
< 0.10
<5
<0.5
<0 5
<25
<10
<10
53
<1
<10
<0.5
<10
<20 <5
<10
<0.5
<100
7.87 <15
<10
<5
<0.5
<0.5
<25
<10
<10
<30
<1
<10
<0.5
<10
<20 <5
<10
<0.5
<100 . 8.68
<15
<10
<5
<0.5
<0 2
<5
<9 „
<9
<?9 1.33
24.4
<0,2
<8...... <5
5•74 <5
<1
<25::
<10, ,
„ 1;1:3 <10
<5
<0.5
<0.5
<25
<10
<10
<30
<1
<10
<0 5
<10
<20 <5
<10
<0.5
<100
8.24
<15 _ <10
<1 <9,5 < 5 <1 0
326 252 2-54 280 . .. , „ 247 198 , 194 217 6.2 9-0

, 6.1 5.53 27.7 29.9 24.7 23.6
101 89.9 89.9 87.9

17 ts,k,e,k , , , , , NA , 17 3 18.2 NA NA 15.9
5 Sample collected by DRC/DWMRC.
D&M = Dames and Moore DWMRC = Utah Division of Waste Management and Radian Control
EFR = Energy Fuels Resources
<1.0
251
??7 6.18
29
99 7
17.3 , 15.9
<10
<1 0
<6.0
<1.0 <1 0
<2.0
<2.0
<1.9 <7.0
<1.0
<2.0
<10
<1 0
<6.0
<1.0
<1.0
<2.0
<2.0
<1.0
<7.0
<1.0 „ „ <2.0
<20
<1.0 <20
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0 <1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0

7.3 7.83 7.86

0.318 0.37 0.37

133 130 130
5 2
<0.2
<2 0 „ „ <2 0
<5 0
<1.0
<1.0
<10 8 5
<5 0
<10.0
4.27+/-2.10
<5
<1
<1
<1 <1
1.92
<1
<1 <1
<20
<1.0
<20
<1.0 <1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1 0 „ <1.0
<20
<1.0
<20
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1:0
<1.0
<1.0"
<1.0
<20
<1.0
<20
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0

7 34
0.35 109
386
1080
8.04
0.38
134
389 978
7.47 7.55
0.38 0.34 112 113
389 394 900 1030
5.7
<2 <1 ..., <1.9 9

197 340 330 316

221 214 , 229 227

3 ' 26 ' 5277 6 5.9

32 6 , 24.8 25.2 25.2

90..
'
8 92.2 95.4 94.2
14,k. 22.3 16.8 17.3
NA 21 8 17 16.8
1, Dames and Moore January 30, 1978, Environmental Report White Mesa Uraium Project San Juan County, Utah, Energy Fuels, Inc 2. THF sampled on November 3, 2010. 3. Contaminants listed in Table 2 of the Groundwater Quality Assurance Plan for EFR 1 4. The Ground Water Qualtity Stantandards (GWQS) are for comparison perposes only and are not compliance standards for this spring.
F.100, p!-4.(:!-L) p.5 - 8 5 .7.0 8.1 7 3 Fluoride (mg/L) 4 0.5 0.4 Chloride (mg/L) NG 1 71 124 Sulfate (mg/L) NG 333 243 383 TDS (mg/L) NG 1270 780 1,010
Carbonete,(mg/L) , NG <1 <1„ <1 Bicarbonate (mg/L) NG NA NA " 316
P9041191,10-1 NP . , 4,00 11,5 205 Potassium (mg/L) NG 6.6 4.3 '
MNr.1,§iYr.n (TO-) „ NP„ , , , _19 , 28 „. 25 Calcium (mg/L) NG 58 133 90.3 rn Total anions (eq/L) NG NA NA 16.7 Total cations (meq/L) NG NA NA 15.6
.214t4gis1. 0.5+/-0.4 0.1+/-0.2 -0.1+/-0.4 1-0.2 +/-0.2 0.198+1-5.75 0.127+/-5.02 <1.0
<0 05
<0.1 l<0.05
EFR
<20
<1.0
<20
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.9
<1.0
7.53
0.38
149
356 1,040
Table 2
Historic Cottonwood Spring Sample Analitical Data up to 2020
Sampling Event
151DR
EFCm

( uplicate)

(split (st 15113WMRC 151DWMRC sample with D ' 'DRC 1 EFR EFR EFR (split sample with (Duplicate

EFR) "Spring 1")

6/20/2012 7/16/2013 6/17/2014 6/16/2015
Nutrients (mg/L)
0.061 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.05121<0.10 l<0.10 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0 1 l<0.1
Heavy Metals (pg/L)
<5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5
<1 0 <1 0 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1 0 <1.0
<1 ,o, 1.q <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1 9 <1.9 . <3.0 <3 0 <25 <25 <25 <3.0 <3.0 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <10 <10 <1.0 <1.0
<2_ <10 <10 <10 <2
:100 , , <Apo, <30 <3.9 <30 <100, <100 ,. <1.0 <1.0 <1 <1 <1 <1 0 <1.0
<9.? .
2.66 <10 <10 <10 4 9 <2
<0,2 , , , <0.5 , <0.5 <0,5 , <0.2
<2 3.31, <10 <10 <10
<2 <2 <20 <20 <20 <20 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5
<2 <2 <10 <10 <10 <1.0 <1 <1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.0
<? . „ <100 <100 <100
<10

.62 - 8 3 .o.i7 1,4.p 8.95 9 9.12 <2
5.37 5.38
<10 <10
7.63 7.25
0.34 0.417
113 118 128
374 403 417
1040 1,020 968
General Inorganics Listed
<15 <15 <15 <5.0
<10 <10 <10 <10.0
Radiologics (pCi/L)
<1.0 10.0198 +/-0.112 4.59+/-1.98
VOC (pg/L)
<1.0
<1.0
<1 0
Others
7.18 <1
EFR
6/16/2016
EFR
6/6/2017
EFR 151DWMRC (split sample with EFR) June 26, 2018
151DWMRC (Duplicate "Spring 1")
1
EFR
6/11/2019
1 Cottonwood
Spring
6/16/2020
Back Spring (EFR Duplicate of Cottonwood Sping)
<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.10 <0.10 <0.05 <0.05 I.<0 05
<0.1 0.124 0.108 <0 1 <0.1 <0 1 <0.1 l<0.1
<5 <5 <5 <5 0 <5.0 <5 <5 <5
<0.5 <0 5 <0.5 <1 0 <1.0 <0.5 <0 5 <9.9 <0,5,_ <0 5 <0.5 <1.9„ <0:5 <9.5
<25 <25 <25 <3.0 <3 0 <25 <25 <25
<10 <10 <10 <1 0 <1.0 <10 <10 <10
<10 <10 <10 <2.0 <2 0 „ „ <19„. .„.. <10, , <1.9. <30 <39 <30 <199 <100 <39 <30 „ <30
<1 <1 <1 <1.0 <1.0 <1 <1 <1
<10 <10 <10 2 3 3.2 <10 <10 <10
<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.2 <0.2 <0 5 <0.5 <0.5 , <10 „ „ . „ <10 <10 , <0,2, <0.2 <10 <10 <10
<20 <20 <20 <2.0 <2.0 <20 <20 <29„
<8 <8 <5.0 <8 <5 , <10 <10 <10 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <10 <10
<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.0 <1.0 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
<100 <100 <100 <10 <10 <100, <100, <log ,
8.84 9.17 10 3 9.2 9:8 10 10:5 10 7
<15 <15 <15 <5.0 <5.0 <15 <15 <15
<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
0.149+/-0.167 0.648+1-0.945 10.726+/-0.608 1%Xigrip4'1,414.4?.44iforagt 0.393+/-0 257 0.256+1-0.209 -0 00212+/-0.191
<20 <20 <20 <6 0 <6.0 <6.0 <20 <20
<1.0 <1.0 <1 0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1 0
<20 <20 <20 <6 <6 <6 <20 <20
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1 0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1 0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1 0 <1.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1 9 <1.0 <1.0 <1 0 <1-0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <7.0 <7.0 <7 0 <1:0. <1,9
<1.9 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.,0 <1.9„ <1.0 <1.0 <1 o o <2.0 <2.0 <1.0 <1.0
7.3 6.59 7.1 7.6 7.7 7 7 7 09 7.09
0 466 0.344 0.282 0 36 0.36 0.36 0.233 0.24
138 129 153 130 140 140 146 147
443
1,070
409
1,080
428
1 ,080
460
1 ,100
460
1,100
460
1,100
417 860 424 1,280
<1 0 .. , „ <1- 0 „ „ <1.9 , <5.0 <5.0 < 0
<1.
0 <1
256 280 283 289 236 280 " ' 289 284
221 213 234 240 240 240 273 282
6.11
„ 29.5 _.
5 72 .. . 27,1
6. 35 „.... „ „ „ . 30.2
6.4 „ .. „ 28 „ 26 „ „ „
6 4
„ 28
7.14
.3?.9
7.?9
102 99,6
„
109 100 100 100 120 . 1?4 18 2 „ . „ 17.8 ' „ 16. „ . niA ' ' r:iik NA 18.4 18.7
17.3 16.6 18.3 NA NA NA 26. 21.4
<5
<0 5
<0.5
<25
<10
<10
<30
<1
<10
<9.9. <10
<20 <5
<10
<0.5
<199 „ 8.17 <15
<10
<5
<1
<5
<1
<1 <5

<5

<20
<1.0 <20
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0 <1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0

<1

<5
<1

<1 <5

<1
<1 <1 <1
<1

<1
<1
<1

7.71 0.34
112
374
1030
<20
<1.0
<20
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
442 410 410
1,020 1100 1100
n Part I.E.1.(c)(2 (ii)
<1 „„ <5 <5 „ „ 200 -269 259
126 230 250
3.14 5.7 8-1 24 31.8 26 „ 162 , „

92 100
15„.8 NA NA
16.3 NA
NA = Not analyzed
NG = No GWCL
T = indicates metals analyzed as totals
= exceeded Ground Water Qualitty Standared (GWQS). However, the GWQS are for comparison perposes only and are not compliance standards for this spring.
Table $
Historic Westwater Seep Analyical Data up to 2020
Monitoring Event
131Contaminants (4)GWQS (for comparison only) EFR EFR EFR EFR EFR EFR EFR EFR DWMRC
sample EFR EFR DWMRC
sample
11/18/2009 7/8/2010 5/31/2011 12) 6/16/2015 10/24/2016
Nutrients
10/27/2017
(mg/L)
10/23/2018 3/27/2019 6/11/2019 3/25/2020 6/16/2020
Ammonia (as N) 25 <0.05 0.051 0 06 0.123 0.1231<0.05 0.0832 <0 05 <0 10 0.0593 <0 05 j<0.1
Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) 10 0.8 <0 1 l<0 1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0 1 <0.1 <0 1 <0 1
Heavy Metals (pg/L)
Arsenic 50 <5 12 3 <5 <5.0 <5 <5.0
Beryllium 4 <0.5 <0.5 0.91 <0 5 <0 5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.0 <0.5 <0 5 <1.0
Cadmium 5 <0 5 <0.5 0 9 <0 5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.0 <0.5 <0.5 <1.0
Chromium 100 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <3.0 <25 <25 <3 0
Cobalt 730 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 1 7 <10 <10 1.0
Copper 1,300 <10 <10 1 16 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 2 4 <10 <10 <2.0
iron 11,000 <30 56 I 4 AAri <30 40 181 575 1,200 2,800 401 <30 <100
Lead 15 <1 <1 41 4 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 n <1 <1.0 <1 0
Manganese 800 37 871 26ti 171 55 5 144 312 528 0 369 35.4 430
Mercury 2 <0.5 <0 5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0 5 <U 2 <0 5 <0 5 <0.2
Molybdenum 40 <10 29 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <0.2 <10 <10 3.5
Nickel 100 <20 <20 I 29 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <2.0 <20 <20 <2.0
Selenium 50 <5 <5 1<5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 0 16
Silver 100 <10 <10 1<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <1.0 <10 <10 <1.0
Thallium 2 <0 5 <0 5 1<0 5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.0 <0.5 <0.5 <1.0
Tin 17,000 <100 <1nn 1<100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <10 <100 <100 <10
Uranium 30 15 1 6.64 2.1 19 5.17 13.2 5 <1 0 2 34 12 9 3.5 Vanadium 60 <15 <1 o 34 <15 <15 <15 <15 <20 <5.0 <20 <15 <5.0
Zinc 5,000 <10 <10 26 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
Radiologics (pCi/L)
Gross Alpha 15 0 3+/-0.2 0 3+/-0 3 0 5+/-0.2 -0.0116+/-0.126 0.00612+/-0.193 0.810+/-0.254 0.0688+/-0.220 0.232+/-0.270 1.02±0.555 0 559+/-0.300 0.119+/-0.191 2.86±2 4
VOC (pg/L)
Acetone 700 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 23 1 <20 <20 <10 0 <20 <20 <10 Benzene 5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1 0 <1 0 <1 0 <1 0 <1.0 2-Butanone (MEK) 4,000 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <6 <20 <20 <6.0 arbon Tetrachloride 5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1 0 <1 0 <1.0 <1.0 <1 0 <1 0 <1.0
hloroform 70 <1.0 <1 0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1 0 <1.0
hloromethane 30 <1.0 <1.0 <1 0 <1 0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <2.0 <1.0 <1.0 <2.0
Dichloromethane 5 <1 0 <1 0 <1.0 <1.0 <1 0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <2.0 <1.0 <1.0 <2.0
Naphthalene 100 <1 0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Tetrahydrofuran (THF) 46 <1.0 <1 0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <7.0 <1.0 <1.0 <7.0
Toluene 1,000 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1 0 <1 0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Xylenes (total) 10,000 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1 0 <1.0 <1.0 <2.0 <1.0 <1.0 <2 0
Others
Field pH (S U ) 6.5 - 8 5 8.01 7.38 7.2 7.24 7.24 6.87 6.70 7.6 7.9 Fluoride (mg/L) 4 0.7 0.6 0.54 0.424 0 618 0.574 0.659 0.505 <0.5 0 555 0.429 <0.5 hloride (mg/L) NG 41 40 21 32.6 38 27.5 36 2 41 6 36 26.6 40.6 36 Sulfate (mg/L) NG 646 607 354 392 573 318 580 436 390 307 460 480 TDS (mg/L) NG 1,370 1,270 853 896 1,060 820 1,220 1,110 990 1,200 1,480 1,100 General Inorganics Listed in Part I.E.1.(c)(2)(ii)
Carbonate (mg/L) NG <5 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <10.0 <1 <1 NA Bicarbonate (mg/L) NG 465 450 371 359 399 369 444 450 330 270 450 NA Sodium (mg/L) NG 195 160 112 139 185 133 218 152 130 117 245 160
Potassium (mg/L) NG 2.4 6.57 3.9 1.98 2.32 2.33 2.94 3.99 3 4 1.76 5.28 3.4 Magnesium (mg/L) NG 26.6 44.7 34.7 34 47.3 31.7 56.6 43.7 35 30.8 54.6 44 Calcium (mg/L) NG 191 179 247 150 176 125 204 185 140 118 204 160 Total anions (meq/L) NG 22.3 22 3 14 1 16 3 21.0 14.8 22 0 19 3 NA 12.6 13.7 NA Total cations (meq/L) NG 21.8 21 8 20.1 16 4 20.8 14.7 24 4 19.6 NA 13.6 15.7 NA 1 THF sampled on November 3, 2010
2 Water samples collected are most likely due to surface water from recent within 48 hours) rain from storms.
3 Contaminants listed in Table 2 of the Groundwater Quality Assurance Plan for EFR
4 The Ground Water Qualtity Stantandards (GWQS) are for companson perposes only and are not compliance standards for this spnng NG = No GWQS DWMRC = Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control. EFR = Energy Fuels Resourses , .thided = exceecic3KQUOCI Watgi,40ahtty Standared (GWQS) However, the GWQS are for companson perposes only and are not compliance standards for this spnng
Table 6
RPD and RPR for DWMRC Duplicate QA/QC Samples and Comparing to EFR Duplicate QA/QC Samples
Sample Date June 16, 2020
(2IContaminants
EFR Sample Comparison EFR and DWMRC Sample Comparison
ottonwoo C d
Spring
Back Spring
(EFR Duplicate of Cottonwood Sping)
RPD/RPR
Entrance
Spring (EFR sample)
Entrance
Spring (DWMRC
sample)
RPD/RPR
Westwater
Spring (EFR
sample)
Westwater
SPring (DWMRC sample)
RPD/RPR
Nutrients (mg/L)
Ammonia (as N)
Nitrate + Nitrite (as N)
<0.05
<0.1
<0.05
<0.1
NC
NC I
1.6
2.46
<0.1
1,8
NC
31,0
<0.05
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
NC
NC
Heavy Metals (pg/L)
Arsenic <5 <5 NC <5.0 <5.0
I
NC <5 <5.0 NC
Beryllium <0.5 <0.5 NC <0.5 <1.0 NC <0.5 <1.0 NC
Cadmium <0.5 <0.5 NC <0.5 <1.0 NC <0.5 <II .0 NC
Chromium <25 <25 NC <25 <3.0 NC <25 <3.0 NC
Cobalt <10 <10 NC <10 <1.0 NC <10 1.0 NC
Copper <10 <10 NC <10 <2.0 NC <10 <2.0 NC
Iron <30 <30 NC <30, <100 NC <30 <100 NC
Lead <1 , <1 NC <1 <1.0 Np <1.0 <1.0 NC
Manganese <I10 <10 NC 56.3 $'' ' 35.4 439 awe
Mercury <0.5 <0 5 . „ „ NC <0:5 <0.2 NC <0.5 <.2 NC
Molybdenum <10 <10 NC <10 3.7 NC <10 3.5 NC
Nickel <20 <20 NC <20 <2.0 NC <20 <2.0 NC
Selenium <5 <5 NC 15 16 -6,5 <5 <5.0 NC
Silver <10 , <10 NC <10 ,<1.0 NC <10 <1.0 NC
Thallium <0.5 <0.5 NC <0.5 <1.0 NC <0.5 <1.0, NC
Tin <100 <100 NC <100 <10 NC <100 , <10 NC
Uranium 10.5 10.7 -1.9 24.7 25 -1.2 12.8. 3.5 114.6
Vanadium <15 <15 NC <15 <5.0 NC <15 <5.0 NC
Zinc <10 <10 NC <10 <10 NC <10 <10 NC
Radiologics (pCi/L)
("PER for Gross Alpha 0.256+/-0.209 -0.00212+/-0.191 (0ER)0.9 0.453+/-0.229 2.54+/-1.58 (RER)0,13 0.119+/-0.191 2.86±2.4 O'ER)LI
VOC (pg/L)
Acetone <20 <20 NC <20 <10 NC <20 <10 NC
Benzene <1.0 <1.0 NC <1.0 <1.0 NC <1.0 <1.0 NC
2-Butartorte (MEK) <20 ,<20 NC <29 <6.0 NC <20 <6.0 NC
Carbon Tetrachloride <1.0 <1.0 NC <II .0 <1.0 NC <1.0 <1.0 NC
Chloroform <1.0 <1.0 NC <1.0 <1.0 NC <1.0 <1.0 NC
Chloromethane <1.0 <1.0 NC <1.0 , <2.0 NC <1.0 <2.0 Np,
Dichloromethane <1.0 ,<1.0 NC <1.0 <2.0 NC <1.0 <2.0 NC
Naphthalene <1.0 <1,0 NC <1.0 <7.0 Nic <1.0 <7.0 NC
Tetrahydrofuran (THF) <1.0 <1.0 NC <1.0 <1.0 NC <1.0 <1.0 NC
Toluene <1.0 ,<1.0 NC <1.0 <1,0 NC <1,,0 <1.0 NC
Xylenes (total) <1.0 <1.0 NC <1.0 <2.6 NC <1.0 <2.0 NC
Others
Field pH (S.U.) 7.09 , 7.09 0.0 7.73 7.5 NC 8.4 , 7.9 NC
Fluoride (mg/L) 0.233 0.24 -3.0 0.638 0.54 16.6 0.555 ,0.5 NC
Chloride (mg/L) 146 147, -0.7 76.7 75 2.2 26.6 36 -30.0
Sulfate (mg/L) 417 424 -1.7 317 300 5.5 307 480 -44.0
TDS (mg/L) 860 1,280 -39.3 964 870 10.3 1,200 1,100 8.7
Genera Inorganics Listed in Part l E.1.(c)(2)(1i)
Carbonate (mg/L) <1.0 , NC , <1 NA NC <1 <1 NC
Bicarbonate (mg/L) 260 284 -1.4 242 NA NC 450 NA NC
Sodium (mg/L) 273 282 -3.2 108 91 17.1 245 160 $42.0
Potassium (mg/L) 7.14 7.23 -1.3 431 3.8 12.6 5.28 3.4 ' 43.3
Magnesium (mg/L) 32.9 33.7 -2.4 45.1 42 7.1 54.6 44 21..
Calcium (mg/L) 120 124 -3.3 144 120 18.2 204 160 24.2
DWMRC = Utah Division of Waste Ma agernent and Radian Control
EFR = Energy Fuels Resources
NA = Not Analyzed
NC = RPD not calculated because one or both of the concentration were below laboratory detiction limits
NG = No GWCL
RER = Replicate error ratio
RPD = Relative Percent Difference
RPD exceeding 20% for ES their duplicate sarnples SRO exceeding 30% for ORC comparing their duplicate sample with ES sample 1. Non-comfonnance exists when the RER z 2
2. Contaminants listed in Table 2 of the Groundwater Quality Assurance Plan for EFR.
3. The Ground Water Qualtity Stantandards (GWQS) are for comparison perposes only and are not compliance standards for this spdng.