DRC-2013-003018 - 0901a068803b27b6

State of Utah
GARY R HERBERT
Governor
GREG BELL
Lieutenant Governor
Department of
Environmental Quality
Amanda Smith
Executive Director
DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
Rusty Lundberg
Director
"DRC-2013-003018"
MEMORANDUM
TO:
THROUGH
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
File C-2013-63
Phil Goble, Section Manager
Russell J. Topham, P.E.
July 1,2013
Engineering Module 75B, Project C-2013-63: Review of the 1st Quarter, 2013 (January-
March, 2013) DMT Performance Standards Monitoring Report and Cell 4A and Cell 4B
BAT Performance Standards Monitoring Report (Report). Groundwater Discharge Permit
(GWDP) UG370004 - Energy Fuels Resources, Inc. (EFR) Wnite Mesa Mill, Blanding,
Utah
This is a summary of Utah Division of Radiation Control (DRC) staff review of the EFR DMT
Performance Monitoring Report and Cell 4A and Cell 4B BAT Performance Standards Monitoring Report
dated May 29,2013, and covering the 1st Quarter, 2013 (January-March, 2013) monitoring period (Report).
DRC received the Report on May 30, 2013 in both hard copy and soft copy CD formats. Discussions in this
document reference the White Mesa Mill Discharge Minimization Technology (DMT) Monitoring Plan,
Revision 12.1 (DMT Plan). The DMT Plan in force during the Period in question was executed on July 25,
2012.
After review of this report, DRC staff findings and recommendations are as follows:
Findings
1. Weekly monitoring of Cell 1 solution pool elevations occurred as required.
2. EFR exceeded the Cell 1 freeboard limit for approximately 6 weeks, with weekly readings for
February 1 through March 15, 2013 exceeding the limit.
3. EFR self-identified the freeboard limit violation and took positive corrective steps to prevent
future violations. The steps taken strengthen the compliance capability of the plant management.
4. The data presented in the report demonstrate EFR compliance with the solution pool operational
requirements of the DMT/BAT plan in force during the quarter, except as noted in the discussion
of Cell 1.
5. Data provided in Attachment C to the Report supports a conclusion that EFR has met the
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 [phone]
www deq Utah gov
Printed on 100% recycled paper
Page 2
requirement to keep water levels in the Cell 2 slimes drain as low as reasonably achievable.
Independent analysis of the data using the prescribed methodology confirms this finding.
6. The report language provides insufficient detail to ascertain the quantity of standing water
observed in feedstock storage areas or the specific area(s) affected.
7. EFR tore the Cell 2 liner on January 11, 2013 in a location not likely to result in contaminant
release. Appropriate notification and repair followed.
8. EFR has met the requirements for inspecting the New Decontamination Pad, finding no indication
of leakage from secondary containment.
9. EFR has met the monitoring requirements for Cell 4A and 4B BAT performance and detected no
failures to meet those standards for the quarter.
10. The leak detection systems in Cells 1, 2 and 3 appear to have operated properly, and no fluids
were detected therein during the 1st quarter of 2013.
Recommendations
1. The DRC should issue a Notice of Enforcement Discretion to document DRC acknowledgement of
the violation and to close out the file on the violation.
2. The DRC should ask EFR to quantify more completely the quantity of standing water observed and
to indicate where the water accumulates. This request should apply to all future reports.
3. The DRC should deem the repair of the Cell 2 liner as adequate and close out the repair of the Cell
2 liner
4. The DRC should issue a closeout letter for the review of this report.
1.0 Tailings Wastewater Pool Elevation Monitoring and Roberts Pond Solution Level Monitoring
Part I.E.7(a) of the GWDP requires EFR to monitor and record weekly the elevation of the wastewater pool
in Tailings Cells 1 and 3 to ensure compliance with Condition 10.3 of the License. Part I.D.3(e) requires
EFR to operate Roberts Pond so as to provide a minimum two feet of freeboard at all times. Part 3.1(d) of
the DMT/BAT Plan requires EFR to measure the solution pool elevation in Cells 4A and 4B weekly, and
the tailings beach maximum elevation and area within Cells 4A and 4B monthly.
Celll
Monitoring of wastewater pool elevations in Cell 1 occurred weekly as required.
Both License Condition 10.3 and GWDP Part I.D.2 address freeboard in Cell 1. The freeboard limit for
Cell 1 is 5615.4 feet above mean seal level (amsl), with License Condition 10.3 governing as the more
stringent of the two pertinent documents. On February 1, 2013, during routine weekly monitoring, EFR
noted fluid level in excess of the freeboard limit. Fluid levels rose to a peak of 5616.26 amsl on February
22, 2013, 0.82 feet above the freeboard limit. EFR restored compliance with the freeboard limit on March
22, 2013. EFR notified the DRC by telephone that it had violated the freeboard limit on May 9, 2013.
Written notice followed on May 14, 2013. v
Page 3
Upon discovery of fluid levels above the freeboard limit, the inspector notified appropriate plant
management personnel. However, plant management failed to forward the information to EFR corporate
offices, and failed to make immediate notification to the DRC. EFR corporate management notified the
DRC verbally within 24 hours and in writing within 5 days of becoming aware of the fluid in Cell 1
exceeding freeboard limits; however, verbal notification to the DRC occurred 99 days after in-plant
inspection revealed the problem. This constitutes a violation of UAC R317-6-6.16C.
The May 14 letter from EFR to the DRC contained a root cause analysis for the violation. All three root
causes treated in the letter center on gaps in understanding by mill leadership. Recent reorganization at the
mill placed people in new responsibilities. Freeboard in Cell 1 exceeding regulatory limits exposed these
gaps in understanding.
Between making the initial verbal notification to the DRC and preparing the written notice 5 days later,
EFR corporate executives travelled to the mill to investigate why mill personnel failed to take the
appropriate actions upon discovery of the problem. The effort morphed into focused training of plant
management and identification of policy and procedure documents to strengthen. During a June 7, 2013
visit to the plant, I interviewed Garrin Palmer and Tanner Holliday, the inspectors who discovered the high
fluid levels during routine inspection of the tailings cells. I also interviewed David Turk and Steve Snyder.
Dan Hillsten was unavailable at the time of my visit. All of these individuals indicated that the
investigation by corporate leadership and the associated training had been intense and firm, and that all
decision makers in the plant organization knew what to do and to whom to report if this circumstance were
to repeat.
Even though fluid levels in Cell 1 exceeded freeboard limits, no releases of contaminants to the
environment occurred as a result.
Finding: Weekly monitoring of Cell 1 solution pool elevations occurred as required.
Finding: EFR exceeded the Cell 1 freeboard limit for approximately 6 weeks, with weekly readings for
February 1 through March 15, 2013 exceeding the limit.
Finding: EFR self-identified the freeboard limit violation and took positive corrective steps to prevent
future violations. The steps taken strengthen the compliance capability of the plant management.
Recommendation: The DRC should issue a Notice of Enforcement Discretion to document DRC
acknowledgement of the violation and to close out the file on the violation.
All Tailings Cells and Roberts Pond I
Tailings have nearly completely filled Cell 3. Recognizing this, letters from the Executive Secretary dated
January 27, 2011 and March 14, 2011 formally eliminated the need for solution pool elevation
measurement in Cell 3. The previously cited January 27, 2011 letter and another letter from the Executive
Secretary dated March 15, 2011 concluded a process obviating the need for freeboard-related solution pool
elevation monitoring in Cell 4A. However, Part 3.1(a) of the DMT/BAT Plan requires monitoring solution
pool elevations in Cells 4A and 4B to facilitate determination of compliance with FML leakage rate
limitations.
Attachment A to the Report contains weekly pool elevations for Cell 1 indicating compliance with the
prescribed freeboard requirements, except as noted above.
Page 4
As noted above, no requirement for weekly solution pool elevation measurement at Cell 3 existed during
the monitoring period. Attachment A to the report reflects no measurements for the reported quarter.
Attachment A to the Report contains weekly pool elevations for Roberts Pond indicating compliance with
the prescribed freeboard requirements.
Attachment A to the Report contains weekly solution pool elevations for Cell 4A in support of calculating
acceptable leak rates for the liner system
Attachment A to the Report includes solution pool elevation readings for Cell 4B indicating compliance
with the prescribed freeboard requirements.
Findings: The data presented in the report demonstrate EFR compliance with the solution pool operational
requirements of the DMT/BAT plan in force during the quarter, except as noted in the discussion of Cell 1.
2.0 Slimes Drain Water Level Monitoring
Part I.F.2 of the GWDP requires EFR to include in the Report, all DMT performance standards monitoring
detailed in Parts I.D.3 and I.E.7 of the GWDP. Part I.D.3(b)(l) of the GWDP requires EFR to maintain the
fluid level in the slimes drain of Cells 2 and 3 as low as reasonably achievable at all times, and to
demonstrate that performance through adherence to the current DMT Monitoring Plan. Part I.E.7(b) of the
GWDP requires monthly monitoring and recording of the depth to wastewater in the slimes drain access
pipe as described in Part I.D.3 of the GWDP and the current DMT Monitoring Plan. Part 3.1(b)(v) of the
DMT Monitoring Plan requires EFR to monitor and record weekly the depth to wastewater in the Cell 2
slimes drain access pipe to determine maximum and minimum head before and after a pumping cycle,
respectively.
Section 4.1 of the Report asserts that the above discussed monitoring requirements only pertain to Cell 2
for the reporting period, as dewatering operations have not commenced in Cell 3.1 concur with this
assessment.
Weekly water level monitoring of the Cell 2 slimes drain is not required as part of the DMT plan, but is
required under Part I.D.3(b)(l) of the GWDP. EFR retains records of Cell 2 slimes drain monitoring at the
mill.
Attachment C to the Report contains data from the quarterly recovery head measurements (discussed in the
next paragraph). The recovery head monitoring data provides indirect evidence that EFR has maintained
the fluid level in the Cell 2 slimes drain as low as reasonably achievable, as required in GWDP, Part
I.D.3(b)(l).
I ran an independent check of EFR's annual slimes drain compliance by completing the calculations
prescribed in Part 1 .D.3(b)(3) of the GWDP. Although the calculation is meant to be performed annually, I
performed the calculation based on data through June 30, 2013 obtained directly from EFR. The
calculations indicate probable compliance at year end. My calculations demonstrate compliance with the
requirement consistently to reduce fluid head in the slimes drain. I have included the calculation sheet as an
attachment to this memorandum.
Based on the data presented in the Report, I had concern that reduction in slimes drain levels in Cell 2 may
have reached equilibrium, i.e., inflows from percolating storm water were offsetting extractions from the
slimes drain. The data for the 3rd and 4th Quarters of 2012 and the 1st Quarter of 2013 showed 0.01 foot
total reduction in fluid head in the slimes drain for those 9 months. I asked for the data file EFR used to
Page 5
generate the annual compliance check for slimes drain recovery head. The data file included data for the 2nd
Quarter of 2013 which showed a resumption of fluid level decline. Resumption of fluid level decline allays
my concern about reaching hydraulic equilibrium with approximately 15 feet of fluid head remaining in the
cell.
Finding: Data provided in Attachment C to the Report supports a conclusion that EFR has met the
requirement to keep water levels in the Cell 2 slimes drain as low as reasonably achievable. Independent
analysis of the data using the prescribed methodology confirms this finding.
3.0 Feedstock Storage Monitoring
This section addresses both bulk conventional feedstock (ore) and alternate feed stored onsite. Ore is stored
on the ore pad. Part l.D.l 1 of the GWDP anticipates and governs storage of alternate feed outside the
confines of the ore pad. 1
Weekly inspection revealed no evidence of ore beyond the boundaries of the ore pad. Storage practices for
alternate feeds appeared compliant with GWDP requirements.
Inspectors noted presence of standing water in areas where EFR stores feedstock. EFR asserts that the
GWDP contains no requirement requiring remedial action because the standing water occurs in areas that
drain to storm water control features which, in turn, convey runoff to tailings disposal Cell 1. Other than
the descriptors "small amount," the report contains no language to quantify the standing water observed.
Without more complete information, the DRC cannot assess whether regarding might be necessary to
prevent or reduce accumulation of standing water, or perform any risk analysis relative to potential ground
water contamination.
I discussed standing water with Tom Rushing of the DRC staff. Mr. Rushing indicated that his storm
water-related inspections at the White Mesa Mill revealed what he characterized as minor, accumulation of
storm water in an area destined for construction activities. However, the area he identified also received
condensate from the alternate feed circuit. Given the lack of detail in the EFR report, I was unable to
determine whether the area identified in the report is the same as the area Mr. Rushing identified.
Finding: The report language provides insufficient detail to ascertain the quantity of standing water
observed in feedstock storage areas or the specific area(s) affected. The problem identified does not
appear serious.
Recommendation: The DRC should ask EFR to quantify more completely the quantity of standing water
observed and to indicate where the water accumulates. This recommendation can apply to future reports.
4.0 Tailings Cells and Pond Liner System Repairs
Weekly inspection of all cells and of Roberts Pond occurred weekly during the period covered in the
report. These inspections revealed no visible defects.
While routing new power cables during installation of a new transformer on January 11, 2013, construction
crews tore a portion of the liner for Cell 2. The tear occurred above the elevation of the tailings in the cell,
and above previous solution pool elevations. The liner tear occurred between cells 2 and 3 as the liner
enters the anchor trench, well away from tailings. Cell 2 has received interim cover and is in final closure
phase. EFR notified the DRC on January 12, 2013 and completed repairs on January 17, 2013. Attachment
E to the report details the repair effort. Given the location of the tear, and the status of Cell 2,1 see no need
for further DRC action regarding this liner tear and repair.
f
Page 6
Finding: EFR tore the Cell 2 liner on January 11, 2013 in a location not likely to result in contaminant
release. Appropriate notification and repair followed.
Recommendation: The DRC should deem the repair of the Cell 2 liner as adequate and close out the repair
of the Cell 2 liner.
On September 25, 2012 the DRC approved repairs of the Cell 1 liner completed the previous two years, but
maintained the file open. The DRC desired to wait until fluid levels in Cell 1 had returned to an elevation
above the repair section, and monitoring of the leak detection system confirmed that the repair was
successful, before closing the file on the Cell 1 liner repair. The report discusses the cell 1 liner repair in
this context. On July 2,2013 the DRC closed the file on the Cell 1 liner repair.
5.0 Decontamination Pads
Weekly inspection of the New Decontamination Pad occurred as required under Part i.F.12 of the GWDP.
The monitoring portals were dry during all inspections, indicating no leakage from primary containment.
Annual inspections for both decontamination pads occurred during the second quarter of 2013 and will
appear in the report for that period.
Finding: EFR has met the requirements for inspecting the New Decontamination Pad, finding no
indication of leakage from secondary containment.
6.0 Cells 4A and 4B BAT Performance Standards Monitoring
Requirements for measuring BAT performance for Cells 4A and 4B include verifying that leak detection
system equipment operates appropriately, verifying that fluid head in the leak detection system sumps does
not exceed 1 foofabove the lowest point in the secondary (lower) flexible membrane liner, and recording
the volume of fluid pumped from the leak detection systems for the two cells. EFR must also record the
fluid head in Cell 4B for compliance purposes, and in Cell 4A for computation of acceptable leakage rate
in Cell 4A. The data provided in the report and its attachments provide evidence of compliance with the
Cells 4A and 4B BAT performance monitoring standards in place during the monitoring period.
Finding: EFR has met the monitoring requirements for Cell 4A and 4B BAT performance and detected no
failures to meet those standards for the quarter.
7.0 Cells 1,2 and 3 Leak Detection System Monitoring
/
Leak detection system monitoring requirements for Cells 1, 2 and 3 appear in the Radioactive Materials
License rather than the GWDP. For consistency, the DRC requested that this monitoring be included as
part of the quarterly report, and EFR has consented to do so.
The report and its attachments contain weekly monitoring data for the operational status of the leak
detection system equipment, fluid levels detected in the leak detection systems, and volumes of fluid
pumped. From the data, EFR represents that no failures of the monitoring equipment occurred that were
not corrected within 24 hours. Leak detection systems for the three cells measured dry; therefore, no fluids
were pumped therefrom.
Finding: The leak detection systems in Cells 1, 2 and 3 appear to have operated properly, and no fluids
were detected therein during the 1st quarter of 2013.
Data and Interim Calculatioins for Slimes Drain Recovery Head Annual Compliance Test
per Part I.D.3(b)(3) of GWDP UGW370004
2010 Test
Closing Date
1/30/2009
2/24/2009
3/28/2009
4/27/2009
5/20/2009
6/22/2009
7/30/2009
8/31/2009
9/28/2009
10/30/2009
11/23/2009
12/14/2009
1/15/2010
2/21/2010
3/15/2010
4/12/2010
5/19/2010
6/30/2010
8/2/2010
9/1/2010
9/24/2010
10/25/2010
11/23/2010
12/22/2010
1/21/2011
2/28/2011
3/18/2011
4/25/2011
5/20/2011
6/23/2011
7/19/2011
12/19/2011
3/12/2012
5/29/2012
9/27/2012
12/17/2012
3/25/2013
6/24/2013
Elevation of Reported Final Adjusted Final SDRE Values Multiplier
Measurement Depth to Stable Depth to Stable Reported as (per GWDP Part E
Point Water Level Water Level* fmsl I.D.3(b)(3)) (SDRE*Multiplier)
5,611.76
5,611.76
5,611.76
5,611.76
5,611.76
5,611.76
5,611.76
5,611.76
5,611.76
5,611.76
5,611.76
5,611.76
5,611.76
5,611.76
5,611.76
5,611.76
5,611.76
5,611.76
5,611.76
5,611.76
5,611.76
5,611.76
5,611.76
5,611.76
5,611.76
5,611.76
5,611.76
5,611.76
5,611.76
5,611.76
5,611.76
5,618.73
5,618.73
5,618.73
5,618.73
5,618.73
5,618.73
5,618.73
11.25
9.35
8.84
11.98
10.28
13.00
13.00
11.04
11.46
13.35
12.49
13.12
13.96
12.50
11.04
10.40
10.43
10.13
10.74
10.65
11.50
12.35
10.81
11.58
13.15
10.42
11.31
11.57
13.17
12.18
12.59
19.83
20.90
21.10
21.84
21.84
21.85
22.16
18.22
16.32
15.81
18.95
17.25
19.97
19.97
18.01
18.43
20.32
19.46
20.09
20.93
19.47
18.01
17.37
17.40
17.10
17.71
17.62
18.47
19.32
17.78
18.55
20.12
17.39
18.28
18.54
20.14
19.15
19.56
19.83
20.90
21.10
21.84
21.84
21.85
22.16
5,600.51
5,602.41
5,602.92
5,599.78
5,601.48
5,598.76
5,598.76
5,600.72
5,600.30
5,598.41
5,599.27
5,598.64
5,597.80
5,599.26
5,600.72
5,601.36
5,601.33
5,601.63
5,601.02
5,601.11
5,600.26
5,599.41
5,600.95
5,600.18
5,598.61
5,601.34
5,600.45
5,600.19
5,598.59
5,599.58
5,599.17
5,598.90
5,597.83
5,597.63
5,596.89
5,596.89
5,596.88
5,596.57
5,600.51
5,602.41
5,602.92
5,599.78
5,601.48
5,598.76
5,598.76
5,600.72
5,600.30
5,598.41
5,599.27
5,598.64
5,597.80
5,599.26
5,600.72
5,601.36
5,601.33
5,601.63
5,601.02
5,601.11
5,600.26
5,599.41
5,600.95
5,600.18
5,598.61
5,601.34
5,600.45
5,600.19
5,598.59
5,599.58
16,797.51
16,796.70
16,793.49
16,792.89
16,790.67
16,790.67
16,790.64
16,789.71
Final Calculatioins for Slimes Drain Recovery Head Annual Compliance Test
per Part I.D.3(b)(3) of GWDP UGW370004
Calculations for 2012
2Ey 67,167.72
67,192.97
67,205.03
67,201.96
N,
Vi
V2
12
12
12
12
2EV+2EV.1+EEV.2 201,565.72
201,599.96
Ny+Ny.J+Ny.2
Nv-i+Nv.2+Nv.3
36.00
36.00
SEy+SEyt+SEy.2 _
Ny+Ny-l+Nv-2 5,599.05 SEv.1+£Ev.2+SEy.3
Nyl+Ny.2+Ny3
= 5,600.00
Preliminary Calculations for 2013 Through June 30
SEy
SEy.!
2Ey_2
SE^a.
33580.35
67167.72
67192.97
67205.03
Vi
Jy-2
6
12
12
12
ZEy+lEy.i+ZEy.2
SEy.i+SEy2+SEv.3
167,941.04
201,565.72
Ny+Ny.i+Ny.2
Ny-i+Ny.2+Ny.3
30.00
36.00
SEy+SEy.J+SEy.2 _
Ny+Ny.i+Ny.2 = 5,598.03 Ny-1+Ny2+Ny3
= 5,599.05
Ev = Slimes drain fluid level times multiplier for number of months represented for current year
Eyi = Slimes drain fluid level times multiplier for number of months represented for first previous year
Ey_2 = Slimes drain fluid level times multiplier for number of months represented for second previous year
Ev.3 = Slimes drain fluid level times multiplier for number of months represented for third previous year
Ny = Number of readings (months) in current year data set
Ny.j = Number of readings (months) in first previous year data set
Ny2 = Number of readings (months) in second previous year data set
Ny3 = Number of readings (months) in third previous year data set
Note: In both cases modeled above, the calculations support a finding of compliance with the requirement
consistently to reduce the fluid level in the slimes drain year over year.