DRC-2019-001990 - 0901a068809d2dae

Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
225 Union Blvd. Suite 600
Lakewood, CO, US, 80228
303 974 2140
www.energyfuels.com
Div of Waste Management
and Radiation Control
FEB 2 7 2019
WC-200-091VO
February 21, 2019
Sent VIA E-MAIL AND EXPRESS DELIVERY
Phil Goble,
Uranium Mills and Radioactive Materials Section Manager
Division 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
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. Goble:
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-11 for the
fourth 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-11 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 manganese in MW-11 that was identified as being in violation of Part I.G.2 of the Permit, in
the Fourth Quarter 2018 Exceedance Notice, dated January 24, 2019.
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 (c)
For
Exceedance in MW-11 in the Fourth Quarter of 2018
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
225 Union Boulevard, Suite 600
Lakewood, CO 80228
February 21, 2019
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 violation of Part I.G.2 of the Permit for the MW-11 for the fourth 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
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 (nitrate
Corrective Action Plan ["CAP"] 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 previously
submitted SARs. 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 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, INTERA, 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.
3. A Plan and Time Schedule will not be prepared for monitoring wells with two successive
exceedances if successive exceedances were reported in a previous quarter and/or were
included in a previous SAR, 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 of the
State of Utah Division of Radiation Control (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. A new GWDP was issued on January
19, 2018. The January 19, 2018 GWDP incorporated the revised GWCLs which resulted from
previous SARs.
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 Director 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 DWMRC Staff and stated in
teleconferences with EFRI on April 27 and May 2, 2011).
This Plan covers manganese in MW-11 that was identified as being in violation of Part I.G.2 of
the Permit, in the Fourth Quarter 2018 Exceedance Notice, dated January 24, 2019.
2. CONSTITUENTS AND WELLS SUBJECT TO THIS PLAN
The following constituent is covered by this Plan:
Table 1
Constituent and Well Subject to this Plan
Constituent POC Well Current GWCL Q4 2018 Results
Manganese (ug/L) MW-11 164.67 161, 195, 230
It should be noted that the Fourth Quarter 2018 Exceedance Notice identifies a number of wells,
with consecutive exceedances of other constituents. None of those constituents are included in
this Plan, for the reasons stated in Section 1 above and in the Fourth Quarter Exceedance Notice.
This Plan and the associated SAR are being submitted to DWMRC by EFRI to address
exceedances in MW-11 for manganese.
3. CATEGORIES FOR ANALYSIS
Previously EFRI has categorized wells and constituents in several categories as follows:
1. Constituents Potentially Impacted by Decreasing pH Trends Across the Site
2. Newly Installed Wells with Interim GWCLs
3. Constituents in Wells with Previously Identified Rising Trends
4. Pumping Wells
5. Other Constituents
Manganese in MW-11 falls within the third category: Constituents in Wells with Previously
Identified Rising Trends. Assessment of this constituent in MW-11 will follow the process noted
below with additional considerations to address the previously identified rising trends.
3.1. Constituents in Wells with Previously Identified Rising Trends
Manganese concentrations in IVIW-11 was exhibiting a statistically significant increasing trend,
due to natural background influences, at the time of the Background Report. Manganese was
addressed in a previous SAR (October 10, 2012) but due to the continued statistically significant
rising trend, has exceeded the GWCL in the January 19, 2018 GWDP.
Preliminary assessment of the indicator parameters in MW-11 shows that chloride and fluoride are
exhibiting statistically significant decreasing trends, uranium shows no trend, and sulfate shows a
statistically significant increasing trend.
4. PLAN
4.1. General
This Plan is 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, to the extent applicable, discharge minimization technology and best available
technology will be reestablished.
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 (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 the 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. 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.
The rising trend in manganese in MW- 1 1 was analyzed by INTERA in Section 1 1 of the Existing
Wells Background Report.
The first step in the analysis will be to perform an assessment of the potential sources for
manganese in MW- 1 1 to determine whether the exceedance is due to background influences or
Mill activities. This assessment will include an analysis of the indicator parameters chloride,
fluoride, sulfate, and uranium to determine if the behavior of the water in MW- 1 1 has changed
since the time of the Background Report. If the exceedance is 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 manganese data from MW- 1 1
using the methods described in the approved Flowsheet.
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
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 manganese in MW-11, the previously identified rising trend suggests that the Q4
2018 consecutive exceedances are likely due to an unrepresentative GWCL. It has been established
that the continued rising trend in manganese in MW-11 is not inconsistent with natural
background, and in fact was accepted as natural background for purposes of setting the revised
GWCLs at the time of the Background Report in 2007, at the time of the 2012 SAR, and when the
GWCLs were reset with the GWDP renewal in January 2019.
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 manganese in MW-11 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.