DRC-2013-002982 - 0901a068803b0439

MM
Department of
Environmental Quality
Amanda Smith
Executive Director
DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
Rusty Lundberg
Director
FILE
State of Utah
GARY R HERBERT
Governor
GREG BELL
Lieutenant Governor
July 23,2013
CERTIFIED MAIL
(Return Receipt Requested)
Jo Ann Tischler, Manager, Compliance and Licensing
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
225 Union Boulevard
Suite 600
Lakewood, CO 80228
r=\
r=\ JO
m un m ru
m
•
• o
a
J2 ru ru
m o
•
r-
"DRC-2013-002982"
U.S. Postal Service,,,
CERTIFIED MAILM RECEIPT
(Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided)
For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.cony
Certified Fee
_ Return Rectept Fee (Endorsement Required)
Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required)
Total Postage & Fees
Sent To
JOANN TISCHLER nov 7/23/13 tr
-asa*"' DIRECTOR OF COMPLIANCE
°rP0E ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES (USA) INC
Cifcsi ^ UN,0N BLvD STE 600
$
Postmark
Here
LAKEWOOD CO 80228
PS Form 3800, June 2002 See Reverse for Instructions
Subject: Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. May 28, 2013 "1st Quarter 2013 Groundwater
Monitoring Report, White Mesa Uranium A/if//"; and May 10, 2013 "Transmittal of
Source Assessment Report for Total Dissolved Solids in MW-29 White Mesa
Uranium Mill" DRC Findings and Notice of Violation
Dear Ms. Tischler:
The Utah Division of Radiation Control ("DRC") has completed a review of the following three
documents submitted by Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. ("EFR").
1. EFR, May 28, 2013, White Mesa Uranium Mill Groundwater Monitoring Report, 1st
Quarter (January through March) 2013
2. EFR, May 10,2013, Notice Pursuant to Partl.GJ(a) Ql, 2013
3. EFR, May 7, 2013, Transmittal of Source Assessment Report for Total Dissolved Solids in
MW-29 White Mesa Mill Ground Water Discharge Permit UGW370004 Conditional
Approval of December 13, 2012 Plan and Time Schedule, prepared by Intera Geosciences
& Engineering
The reviewed documents were submitted per the requirements of the EFR White Mesa Mill Utah
Ground Water Discharge Permit, Permit No. UGW370004 ("Permit"). DRC review was
conducted to determine EFR compliance with the Permit requirements, and was conducted with
consideration of the following ongoing actions related to groundwater compliance monitoring at
the White Mesa Uranium Mill:
1. A May 25, 2012 Permit modification request submitted by EFR. The modification request
was to document and formalize updated accelerated monitoring notification report
agreements, affecting Part I.G. 1(a) of the Permit, which were made between EFR and
DRC via teleconference. The May 25, 2012 request will be included with the White Mesa
195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, UT
Mailing Address P O Box 144850 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850
Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • T D D (801) 536^414
www deq Utah gov
Printed on 100% recycled paper
Jo Ann Tischler
Page 2
Mill Ground Water Permit Renewal (currently in the application review process). The
Permit revision is subject to formal public notice and participation requirements prior to
final authorization by the Director.
2. An EFR Source Assessment Report ("SAR"), dated October 10, 2012, for previously
documented out-of-compliance parameters (multiple parameters), required per Stipulated
Consent Agreement, Docket No. UGW12-03. Per DRC review findings as documented in
a DRC review memo dated April 23, 2013 and as transmitted via letter from the Director
to EFR dated April 25, 2013, specific GWCL parameters for monitoring wells are
recommended to be modified (12 instances) in the Permit and GWCL's are recommended
to be removed from the Permit for three up-gradient monitoring wells. All revised
GWPL's are subject to formal public notice and participation requirements prior to final
authorization by the Director.
3. An EFR pH Report dated November 9, 2012, which evaluates monitoring wells in out-of-
compliance status for pH. The pH Report was required per a DRC Stipulated Consent
Agreement, Docket No. UGW12-03. Per DRC review findings as documented in a DRC
review memo dated April 23, 2013 and transmitted via letter to EFR from the Director
dated April 25, 2013, GWCL's for pH at all MW series monitoring wells are
• recommended to be modified in the Permit based on revised statistical evaluation
(calculated using field measured pH instead of laboratory measured values). All revised
GWPL's are subject to formal public notice and participation requirements prior to final
authorization by the Director.
DRC Findings Regardmg the EFR Mav 7,2013 Source Assessment Report
A May 7, 2013 Source Assessment Report (May 7, 2013 SAR) for Total Dissolved Solids in
Monitoring Well MW-29 was submitted to the Director, received on May 8, 2013 for review and
approval. The May 7, 2013 SAR was prepared per a conditional approval letter from the Director,
dated May 30, 2013. The conditional approval was for an EFR March 14, 2013 Plan and Time
Schedule which was approved with the following conditions: "7. The SAR for Selenium at
groundwater monitoring well MW-31 will include all study elements and report structure of the
October 10, 2012 EFR Source Assessment Report (approved by the Director through Stipulated
Consent,Agreement UGW12-03); including graphs, plots and charts, and; 2. The SAR will be
submitted on or before 90 calendar days from EFR receipt of this conditional approval letter."
DRC staff requested additional information regarding the May 7,2013 SAR in order to complete
the review, specifically, DRC staff requested a table of the data and dates used for the GWCL
statistical evaluation. The data was requested via e-mail on July 1,2013 and was received via e-
mailonJuly 2, 2013.
DRC Review of the EFR Source Assessment
Current TDS data was compared with Previous Background Groundwater Quality Reports to
determine if any geochemical behavior changes in indicator parameters (chloride, sulfate, fluoride
and uranium) could be identified. Based on this geochemical evaluation EFR concluded that:
1. "The results of the geochemical analysis of TDS in MW-29 show that concentrations are
not behaving differently than they were at the time of the Background Report. TDS in
MW-29 was decreasing (not significantly) at the time of the Background Report. Appendix
Jo Ann Tischler
Page 3
B indicates that at the time of this SAR, the trend line for TDS is still slightly sloping
downward (r=0.02), however, no real trend is observed"
2. "Chloride analysis at the time of the Background Report displayed a decreasing trend that
was not significant. At the time of this SAR, chloride is showing a significantly decreasing
trend"
3 "Sulfie concentrations are also showing a decreasing trend, however, the trend is not
sigrficant"
4 «i 'anium concentrations are increasing in MW-29; however, that trend is not identified
/ being significant in the Mann-Kendall trend analysis. Further, without the increase of
other indicator parameters, increasing uranium concentrations can be attributed to
/ natural influences at the site rather than any potential tailings cell seepage."
/
psed on these findings EFR concluded that "because there is not a rising trend in TDS, and the
,ey indicator parameter chloride is decreasing, the groundwater in MW-29 is not behaving
/differently than at the time of the Background Report. It is therefore appropriate to revise the
GWCL for TDS in MW-29 to better reflect natural background conditions."
EFR further concluded that a probable reason for the apparently higher TDS concentrations at
well MW-29 is that more data is available now than at the time of the GWCL calculations for the
Background Reports. Specifically, the Background Report used eight groundwater sample results
whereas the proposed modified GWCL uses twenty-five.
DRC additionally reviewed the time-concentration plots included with the source assessment
report (included current plots and plots of data used for the previous background reports) and
concurs that the geochemical behavior of indicator parameters does not appear to have changed
significantly. Based on DRC staff review of the source assessment it does not appear that the
recent TDS GWCL exceedances at monitoring well MW-29 are due to tailings solution release to
the groundwater, as shown primarily through the absence of an increase in chloride concentration
or a rising chloride concentration trend.
DRC Review of the EFR Statistical Evaluation/Calculations
The current Permit GWCL for TDS in monitoring well MW-29 is 4,400 mg/L; EFR proposes a
modified GWCL be included of 4,570 mg/L based on the following data analysis:
1. Shapiro-Wilk Test for Normality
2. Least Squares Regression Trend Analysis
3. Calculation of proposed GWCL's based on the Director approved statistical flow chart
(includes criteria based on the number of non-detects in the data set and results of trend
analysis).
DRC staff conducted a cross check of the Shapiro-Wilk test of normality and calculation of mean
and standard deviation calculations in the source assessment report, included as an attachment to
this memo. The cross check was based on the data set (N = 25) provided by EFR, as the data set
used in the source assessment report, by e-mail dated July 2, 2013.
Per DRC staff review it appears that the data set used was valid, no issues identified, and that the
normality test and development of the proposed GWCL based on mean + 2a was correct and was
Jo Ann Tischler
Page 4
in conformance with the Director approved flow chart. It is therefore recommended that the
revised GWCL for TDS in monitoring well MW-29, 4,570 mg/L, be included in the Permit
renewal. The table below additionally summarizes this information: \
Well
Number
MW-29
Parameter
TDS
Location
Down-
Gradient
of Cell 2
Current
GWCL
(mg/L)
4,400
EFR
Proposed
GWCL
Revision
(mg/L)
4,570
EFR Background
Rationale
Geochemical
Behavior Consistent
with Background
Reports (more data
now available)
Chloride and Sulfate
indicator parameters
are showing a
decreasing trend.
EFR \
Method to"
Determine
GWCL
Mean + 2a
DRC Finding-
Conformance
Vith the
\tistical Flow Clvr?
yes
Notice of Violation and Order Docket No.UGW13-05
Notice of Violation and Compliance Order ("NOV/CO"), Docket No. UGW13- 05 is enclosed.
The NOV/CO is issued regarding a reporting violation (Facility Out-of-Compliance Status) which
was identified during DRC review of the 1st Quarter 2013 Groundwater Monitoring Report.
A written response is required within 30 calendar days after this NOV/CO is signed. The
NOV/CO is fully enforceable unless contested in writing within 30 calendar days, as described in
the "Contesting this NOV/CO" section of the NOV/CO. Any response or written answer to the
NOV/CO should be addressed to Rusty Lundberg, Director, Utah Water Quality Board, 195 North
1950 West, P.O. Box 144850, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4850.
If you have questions regarding this letter or the enclosed NOV/CO, please contact Tom Rushing
at [phone].
Sincerely,
Rusty Lundberg
Director
Enclosure: Notice of Violation and Order, Docket No. UGW13-05
cc: John Hultquist, DRC
Charles Bishop, DRC
F \Energy Fuels\Groundwater Reports\2013 Groundwater ReportsU st Quarter 2013\EFR 1 st 2013 GW Monitonng DRC Ltr docx
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
IN THE MATTER OF
! ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES (USA) INC.
i 225 UNION BLVD., SUITE 600
: LAKEWOOD CO, 80228
DOCKET NUMBER UGW13-05
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND
COMPLIANCE ORDER
A. STATUTORY AUTHORITY
This NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND COMPLIANCE ORDER ("NOV/CO") is issued to ENERGY
FUELS RESOURCES (USA) INC. ("EFR") by the Director of the Utah Division of Radiation Control
(hereafter "DIRECTOR") under the Utah Water Quality Act, Utah Code Ann. §§ 19-5-101 to 19-5-123
(ACT), including sections 19-5-104, -106, -111 and -115. This NOV/CO is also issued in accordance
with the Utah Administrative Procedures Act, Utah Code Ann. §§ 63G-4-101 to 63G-4-601 and
Administrative Procedure Rules, Utah Administrative Code (UAC) R305-7.
Under the Water Quality Act, Utah Code Title 19, Chapter 5, "DIRECTOR" for purposes of
groundwater quality at a facility licensed by and under the jurisdiction of the Division of Radiation
Control, means the Director of the Utah Division of Radiation Control. Utah Code Ann. § 19-5-102(6).
The DIRECTOR may enforce rules made by the Water Quality Board through the issuance of orders in
accordance with Utah Code Ann. § 19-5-106(2)(d).
B. APPLICABLE STATUTORY AND REGULATORY PROVISIONS
1. The DIRECTOR issued EFR a Utah Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit No. UGW370004
("Permit") for the White Mesa Uranium Mill ("Facility") on March 8,2005. Said Permit was
modified by the DIRECTOR on March 17, 2008, January 20, 2010, June 17,2010, February 15,
2011, July 14, 2011, August 8,2012, and was last modified on August 24, 2012.
2. Utah Administrative Code ("UAC") § R317-6-6.5 "Notice of Intent to Issue a Ground Water
Discharge Permit" requires the DIRECTOR to publish a notice of intent to approve a ground
water permit in a local newspaper and to allow 30 days for public comments.
3. Part I.G.2 of the Permit states: "out-of-compliance status exists when the concentration of a
pollutant in two consecutive samples from a compliance monitoring point exceeds a GWCL in
Table 2 of this Permit"
4. Part I.G.4 of the Permit states: "if the facility is out of compliance, the following is required the
Permittee shall prepare and submit within 30 calendar days lo the Direcior a plan and a lime
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"
1. The Facility receives and processes natural uranium-bearing ores and certain specified alternate
feed matenals, and possesses byproduct matenal in the form of uranium waste tailings and other
uranium byproduct waste generated by the licensee's milling operations. The Facility is located
C. FINDINGS OF FACT
Docket No. UGW13-05 Page 1
approximately 6 miles south of Blanding, Utah, on a tract of land in Sections 28, 29, 32, and 33,
Township 37 South, Range 22 East, Salt Lake Baseline and Meridian, San Juan County, Utah.
2. Several of the Facility monitoring wells (MW-1, MW-2, MW-3, MW-5 and MW-12) have had
multiple exceedances of THF concentrations historically. A tetrahydrofuran ("THF")
demonstration study work plan (Revision 1.1, dated December 15, 2005) was submitted to DRC
by EFR and was subsequently approved. The objective of the study was to determine if the THF
exceedances were due to the use of adhesive glues and chemicals dunng well construction which
contained THF. The approval was for a series of pumping tests and was contingent that during
the tests the water level in each of the pumped wells must be maintained below all glue joints. If
a decreasing concentration trend was shown during the test then it was agreed that the well
construction joints would be identified as the likely THF source.
3. Per letter correspondence from the DIRECTOR to EFR dated December 12,2007, based on
Utah Division of Radiation Control staff review of a June 26, 2007 EFR report of laboratory data,
"The results of the study were inconclusive," and concludes "that the source of THF detected-iii
the wells is currently undetermined."
4. Per DRC review of the EFR May 10,2013 Notice Pursuant to the Permit Part I.G. 1 (a)
"Accelerated Monitonng" and the EFR May 28,2013 1st Quarter Groundwater Monitonng
Report it was noted that the THF monitoring results at monitoring well MW-1 exceeded the
Permit Ground Water Compliance Limit ("GWCL") for two consecutive accelerated monitoring
periods (4th Quarter 2012 and 1st Quarter 2013). Specifically, the Permit lists the THF GWCL for
monitoring well MW-1 as 11.5 ug/L. The fourth quarter 2012 THF result was 21.8 ug/L and the
first quarter 2013 monitoring result was 12.6 ug/L. Monitonng well MW-1, therefore, entered
out-of-compliance status upon EFR receipt of the first quarter 2013 laboratory data results for
MW-1 as defined by the Permit Part I.G.2.
5. Per the EFR May 10,2013 Notice "THF has exceeded the GWCL for both the Q4 2012 sampling
event and the Ql 2013 sampling event. In the October 10, 2012 SAR, EFRI requested the
removal of GWCLs for the far upgradient wells (MW-1, MW-18, and MW-19) at the Mill which
cannot be impacted by Mill activities. In correspondence dated April 25, 2013, DRC noted (DRC
agrees with the justification provided by EFR, that far upgradient wells are not likely to be
impacted by current revision of the GWDP). A plan and schedule is not necessary because the
exceedance is not caused by Mill activities. Until such time as the GWCL's are removed, the
exceedances will continue to be noted and reported."
6. THF Out of Compliance status at well MW-1 was not addressed in the EFR October 10,2012
SAR. The THF Out of Compliance status at well MW-1 was recently added with the results of
the 1st Quarter 2013 monitoring event. Previous studies to determine the source of THF at well
MW-1 were inconclusive. THF is not naturally occurring (produced organic solvent) in the
enviroriment and is not considered a background monitoring parameter.
7. THF has been detected in FACILITY groundwater monitonng wells at concentrations exceeding
Permit Ground Water Compliance concentrations at several locations including wells
hydraulically downgradient from the tailings cells (MW-3, MW-5, MW-11, and MW-12).
8. A Utah Division of Radiation Control Staff Review Memorandum, dated April 23, 2013, was
attached to trie DIRECTOR'S correspondence letter (dated April 25,2013) and states "Iffuture
groundwater gradients change such that there is reasonable evidence to suggest that any of the
upgradient wells MW-1, MW-18 or MW-19 may be impacted by tailings cell discharge or other
Docket No. UGW13-05 Page 2
Mill related activities, then the Director will re-institute GWCL's in the Permit at any or all of the
monitoring wells. Continued semi-annual (baseline) monitoring for all contaminants listed in
Table 2 of the current Permit (Current - DRC 8/24/2012) will be required to continue for
continued assessment of background groundwater quality at monitoring wells MW-1, MW-18 and
MW-19."
9. Removal of Permit GWCL's from upgradient monitoring well MW-1 is pending permit renewal
(authorization by the DIRECTOR) mcluding required public notice, public participation and
comment periods (UAC § R317-6-6.5). Therefore, until such time as the Permit is renewed; all
listed GWCL's and conditions (e.g. Plan and Time Schedules for Source Assessment of Out-of
Compliance Parameters) are applicable and enforceable.
D. VIOLATIONS
Based on the foregoing FINDINGS OF FACT, EFR is in violation of the following:
1. Part I.G.4.C of the Permit for failmg to provide a plan and a time schedule for assessment of the
source(s), extent, and potential dispersion of the monitonng well MW-1 THF contamination to
the DIRECTOR.
E. ORDER
In view of the foregoing FINDINGS and VIOLATIONS, and pursuant to Utah Code Annotated Section
19-3-108, EFR is hereby ordered to:
1. Immediately initiate all actions necessary to achieve compliance with all applicable provisions of
the Utah Water Quality Act, Ground Water Quality Rules in the Utah Administrative Code, and
the Permit.
2. Submit a response to the DIRECTOR within 30 calendar days of receipt of this NOV/CO to
include but not be limited to the following items:
a. The root cause of the noncompliance,
b. Corrective steps taken or to be taken to prevent re-occurrence of the noncompliance,
c. Date when compliance was/or will be achieved.
d. A plan and time schedule for assessment of THF out-of-compliance status at
monitoring well MW-1 in compliance with the Permit Part I.G.4.C
F. NOTICE
Compliance with the provisions of this NOV/CO is mandatory. Under the Utah Division of Water
Quality Penalty Criteria for Civil Settlement Negotiations, Utah Administrative Code § R317-1-8, EFR's
good faith efforts to comply with this Compliance Order may impact the monetary penalty that could
apply in a settlement. Providing false information may subject EFR to further civil penalties or cnrmnal
fines.
Docket No. UGW13-05 Page 3
UCA § 19-5-115 provides that a violation of the ACT or a related order may be subject to a civil penalty
of up to $10,000 per day of violation. Under certain circumstances of willfulness or gross negligence,
violators may be fined up to $25,000 per day of violation.
G. CONTESTING THIS NOV/CO
This NOV/CO is effective immediately and shall become final unless your written contest to this
NOV/CO is received by the DIRECTOR within thirty (30) calendar days after the date this NOV/CO
was signed. See Utah Admin Code R305-7-303. Any further administrative proceedings in this case
shall be conducted formally under Utah Code Ann. §§ 63G4-101 through 63G-4-601.
To contest this NOV/CO, you must respond in writing and must comply with Utah Admin Code R305-7-
303, which requires, among other things, that you state you're factual and legal reasons for disagreeing
with the Notice of Violation or Compliance Order, and that you state the action that you would like the
agency to take.
A response contesting this NOV/CO must be received by the DIRECTOR within 30 calendar days after
the date this NOV/CO was signed.
(Mailing address)
Rusty Lundberg, Director
Utah Division of Radiation Control
195 North 1950 West
P.O. Box 144850
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850
(Address for by-hand or overnight delivery)
Rusty Lundberg, Director
Utah Division of Radiation Control
195 North 1950 West ^
Salt Lake City UT, 84116
You will not be allowed to contest this NOV/CO in court or in any other forum if you do not first contest
the NOV/CO as described above.
Signed this *2^>^ day of My, 2013
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
Rusty LundbergA Director
Docket No. UGW13-05 Page 4