DRC-2018-001745 - 0901a068807bee39

Div of Waste Management
and Radiation Control
Ref: 8ENF-RC
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1595 Wynkoop Street
Denver, CO 80202-1129
Phone [phone]
www.epa.gov/region8
FEB 1 5 2018
David C. Frydenlund
Senior Vice President, General Counsel
And Corporate Secretary
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
225 Union Boulevard, Suite 600
Lakewood, Colorado 80228
Re: Report for CERCLA Off-Site Rule (OSR) Site Visit of White Mesa Mill, May 10, 2017
Dear Mr. Frydenlund:
On May 10, 2017, the EPA conducted a CERCLA OSR site visit of your facility. The September 22,
1993, Off-Site Rule established the criteria for determining whether facilities are acceptable for the off­
site receipt of CERCLA wastes from response actions authorized or funded under CERCLA. The
criteria for a facility’s acceptability to receive CERCLA wastes are that no “environmentally significant
release of hazardous substances has occurred at the facility unless the release is controlled by an
enforceable agreement for corrective action under an applicable Federal or State authority” and that
there are no relevant violations at the unit or units receiving the CERCLA wastes.
White Mesa Mill operates under a Radioactive Materials License No. UT 1900479 issued by the Utah
Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
(DWMRC) and a Groundwater Discharge Permit No. UGW370004 issued by the DWMRC pursuant to
the Utah Cod Ann. Utah Water Quality Act.
Under this license, the facility accepts and processes uranium-bearing material from CERCLA removal
or remedial actions in accordance with the CERCLA Off-Site Rule, 40 CFR Section 300.440. These
uranium-bearing materials are processed to extract uranium. The residuals or tailings from this process,
defined as 1 le,(2) byproduct material excluded from the definition of solid waste under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), are placed in cells at the site.
EPA personnel conducting this site visit included Mr. David Duster, RCRA inspector, Ms. Treasure
Bailley, physical scientist, and me. We were also accompanied by Mr. Ryan Johnson, the Utah
Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ), Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
(DWMRC) inspector.
Facility representatives present at the site included Logan Shumway, Mill Manager, David Turk,
Environmental Compliance, Flealth & Safety Manager, and you. Ms. Kathy Weinel, Quality Assurance
Manager, provided information prior to the site visit. Your facility records are organized and easily
accessible, and your staff is well trained and knowledgeable.
A copy of the report is enclosed for your review, and a copy has been sent to Mr. Phillip Goble,
DWMRC supervisor, and Mr. Scott Clow, Ute Mountain Ute (UMU) Environmental Programs Director.
I wish to thank you and the other facility personnel for the cooperation and courtesy shown to me during
this site visit. If you have questions concerning the enclosed report, please contact me at (303) 3 12-6503
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Linda Jacobson
RCRA Inspector
' Enclosure
cc: Phillip Goble, UDEQ DWMRC
Scott Clow, UMU
2
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - REGION 8
ENFORCEMENT, COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE DIVISION
CERCLA OFFSITE RULE SITE VISIT REPORT
Facility:White Mesa Mill
Energy Fuels
6425 South Highway 191
Blanding, UT 84511
Facility Contact:David Frydenlund, Counsel, Vice-President
Telephone Number: [phone] (Main)
Notification Status: Non-Notifier/Regulated by the NRC License
Issued by the State of Utah
Report Type:CERCLA Offsite Rule Site Visit
Date:
Time In:
Time Out:
May 10, 2017
8:55 am
4:00 pm
Weather:warm, clear
Facility
Participants:Logan Shumway, Mill Manager
David Turk, Environmental Compliance, Health & Safety Manager
EPA
Representatives:Linda Jacobson, RCRA Inspector
David Duster, RCRA Inspector
Treasure Bailley, Physical Scientist
State
Representative:Ryan Johnson, Inspector
Background
This was an arranged CERCLA Offsite Rule site visit of the White Mesa Mill, owned by Energy
Fuels, located approximately six miles south of Blanding, Utah. The Off-Site Rule was
promulgated to avoid having CERCLA wastes from response actions authorized or funded under
CERCLA contribute to present or future environmental problems by directing these wastes to
management units determined to be environmentally sound (preamble to final OSR, 58 FR
49299, 29201, September 22, 1993). The purpose of this site visit was to evaluate the facility’s
compliance with its state-issued license and permits so the EPA may determine whether it is
environmentally sound under the CERCLA Off-Site Rule. To be acceptable to receive materials
from CERCLA-funded cleanups or actions, a facility must currently be in compliance with
applicable environmental laws. The facility also must not have any releases to ground water,
surface water, soil, or air unless the releases are controlled by an'enforceable agreement for
corrective action.
The White Mesa Mill facility currently receives shipments from Dawn Mining Midnite Mine, a
Superfund Site near Spokane, Washington. The material being shipped is water treatment plant
residual sludges accepted at the White Mesa Mill as an alternative uranium feed stock material.
The Radioactive Materials License was amended to allow receipt of this material under
Amendment #07, July 10, 2014.
The facility processes natural uranium-bearing ores and certain specified alternate feed materials.
The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA) amended the Atomic
Energy Act (AEA) to revise the definition of byproduct material in section 1 le. As a result of
UMTRCA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) amended 10 CFR Part 40 to regulate the
uranium and thorium tailings and wastes from the milling processes. Under normal operation, all
tailings and wastes in an NRC- or agreement state-licensed mill producing uranium or thorium,
which are classified as 1 le(2) byproduct material, are disposed in tailings piles regulated under
10 CFR Part 40, and are not subject to EPA regulation under RCRA.
In 2004, the state of Utah became an agreement state with the NRC. Consequently, the nuclear
license and the groundwater discharge permit are issued by the Utah Department of Hazardous
Waste and Radiation. The Air Approval Order is issued by the Utah Department of
Environmental Quality. There are two identified groundwater plumes at the facility, both of
which are being addressed by state-issued orders. A Stipulation and Consent Order (SCO) for the
May 7, 2012 corrective action plan (CAP) was finalized on December 12, 2012. The SCO
required nitrate source control in the vicinity of the Ammonium Sulfate Crystal Tanks and also
required pumping to establish hydraulic control of the plume. On September 16, 201 5, a SCO
approved the Corrective Action Plan for the chloroform plume.
Pre-Site Visit Preparation
Call with State
Since Utah, as an agreement state with the NRC, issues the radioactive materials license, the
groundwater discharge permit, and the air approval order, and the EPA has no jurisdiction over
11(e)(2) material, Ms. Jacobson coordinated with the state, inviting them to participate in the site
visit. A call was held with Mr. Phil Goble and Mr. Ryan Johnson on May 3, 2017, prior to a
2
separate meeting with Energy Fuels. Mr. Goble explained the regulation of the CERCLA
material being received from Dawn Mining and its classification as an ore per the NRC. The
material is accepted as an alternative feed material. The state representatives discussed the cells
in use at the facility, the presence of two groundwater plumes at the site, and the access to all the
monitoring data on the state website to which they later provided links in an email.
Meeting with Facility
Prior to the site visit, Ms. Jacobson scheduled a meeting with the facility representatives based in
the Lakewood, Colorado office on May 3, 2017. The meeting focused on the main components of
the site visit which included: participants, process overview, waste receiving, incoming material
storage, cells/ponds, location of groundwater, surface water, air monitoring, and records review.
Ms. Jacobson also provided the facility with a list of the records to be reviewed and the items to
be discussed during the site visit (see Attachment 1).
The facility provided copies of the documents discussed at the May 3, 2017 meeting on a flash
drive. These documents include the following: 1) 3/2/11 Air Approval Order Modification; 2)
8/24/12 Utah Radioactive Material License Amendment No. 05 and the modified Utah Ground
Water Discharge Permit; 3) 2/27/17 Semi-Annual Effluent Monitoring Report for July 1 through
December 31,2016; 4) 2/8/17 Discharge Minimization Technology (DMT) Performance
Standards Monitoring Report and Cell 4A Best Available Technology (BAT) Performance
Standards Monitoring Report for the 4th quarter of 2016; 5) 2/10/17 4th Quarter 2016
Groundwater Monitoring Report; and 6) 7/10/14 License Amendment 7 Radioactive Material
License Number UT 1900479. These documents were copied to a disk and are included as an
attachment to this report.
In addition to the Hash drive, the facility representative provided a list of notes from the items
discussed in the May 3, 2017, meeting, which addressed, among other things, the compliance
status, reportable spills, cell (impoundment) usage and operational monitoring, and surface water
monitoring. A copy of this list is also attached to this site visit report in Attachment 2.
Opening Interview
The EPA representatives and the state inspector, Ryan Johnson, who accompanied the EPA on
this site visit, arrived at the facility at approximately 8:55 am. They were greeted by facility
officials and shown to a conference room. Ms. Jacobson asked for receiving records, processing
records, and inspection records. The facility and state representatives provided an overview of
the facility’s processes and waste management procedures.
Facility Overview
Materials receipt and screening
All ores get commingled from the front of the mill to the back. The facility can directly dispose
of 11(e) 2 materials from direct-mining facilities. They explained that the Dawn Mining material
is pretty homogeneous with a consistent uranium percentage. Production water is obtained from
onsite wells. An Alternative Feed Circuit was constructed approximately 10 years ago. The
j
facility works 24/7 on a batch. They maintain the ALARA standard for radiation protection and
control, meaning as low as reasonably achievable. The facility maintains both an R&D lab
(metallurgical lab) and a chemical lab. Current lab wastes go to the tailings cells as 1 l(e)2
wastes.
Reclamation Plan/Facility Decommissioning
Per their state-issued, Radioactive Material License, the mill is required to maintain a financial
surety that can cover the estimated costs for decommissioning and decontamination of the mill
and mill site, reclamation of any tailings or waste disposal areas, groundwater restoration, and the
long-term surveillance fee. The reclamation bond is reviewed annually; and inflation adjustments
are made to ensure everything is covered. The facility is also required to perform archaeological
studies of any disturbed area. The state mentioned that Rec Plan 5.1 is out for public comment
now. The state looks at the reclamation plan at every license renewal, which occurs every 10
years. If the company should go out of business, the state would perform the reclamation under
the bond; then DOE does the long-term monitoring. One million dollars will go to DOE to
perform air and groundwater monitoring. The state offered the example of Lisbon Valley, a
radiation site where the reclamation was being led by the UDEQ, and the state is preparing to
turn it over to DOE.
Ore Storage Pad construction and operational requirements
The ore pad, comprising approximately 25 acres, is unlined, compacted soil. Both the facility and
the state recognize that the ore storage pad is contaminated and will address it at
decommissioning. The facility explained that the bedrock is not very deep below the pad, and
there are monitoring wells downgradient of the ore pad. Additionally, the pad is graded so that
everything drains to the evaporation pond.
There is no storage time limit for materials on the ore pad, but there are inspection requirements.
No ponding of water is allowed, and any liquid pooling is removed.
The contaminated ore storage pad is grandfathered into the site reclamation plan. Additionally,
the surety bond is required to include the materials in storage on the ore pad. The Reclamation
Plan specifies placement of a foot of clay, two 60-ml HDPE liners, a geonet, and a leak detection
system over the storage pad.
As part of the site visit, the inspection team was shown the Ore Storage Pad. Everything is
transported in and out by trucks, which are decontaminated by power washing before they leave
the site. The facility reuses the truck washwater until it is dirty, then the water and sediment go to
the tailings cell. Washwater is also used for dust control in the summer, including spraying the
ore piles with water.
The inspectors noted the condition of the Dawn Mining material in storage on the pad. The Dawn
Mining material is shipped in 3-layer super sacs, which weigh approximately 6000 pounds each.
It was noted that the super sacs were labeled as “UN 2910, Radioactive, Class-A, Unstable,”
received in the later part of 2016. The Dawn Mining totes contain equivalent feed. In 2016, 208
super sacks were shipped to White Mesa Mill. There were 62 sacks, all in good condition,
awaiting processing during the May 2017 OSR visit.
4
Cell Constructions and Operation
White Mesa Mill uses lined impoundments, referred to as cells, for management of tailings,
effluents, and evaporation of liquids. There are currently five cells at the mill: Cells 1,2, 3, 4a,
and 4b. Cells 5a and 5b will be built for future expansion. Leak detection in the older cells is
rudimentary. The cells have an established flow rate and design flow rate of 24,000 gallons/day.
The facility records the volumes that are pumped out of the leak detection system, which is zero
on most days. There are freeboard requirements for the cells. Dam safety inspections are also
conducted by their engineers. The facility must maintain and operate the cells according to
standards and procedures reviewed by the state. All inspections, freeboard levels, pumped
volumes, etc. are monitored and reported to the state. Regarding the life of the liners in Cells 4a
and 4b which are HOPE versus the PVC liners in Cells 1, 2, and 3, the facility stated that the
manufacturer guarantees the liners for 10’s of years, not 1000 years.
Cell 1
Cell 1, dedicated to evaporation of Mill Waste solutions, is 55 acres in size. It was built in June
1981 with a single 30 mil PVC flexible membrane liner (FML). Cell 1 is operated as an
evaporation pond. When asked if there had been leakage from Cell 1, Mr. Frydenlund stated that
there was a tear on the liner near the surface, not leakage. On June 2, 2010, an accumulation of
fluid was discovered in the Cell 1 leak detection system that was confirmed as originating from
the cell. To repair the liner, the solution level was lowered so that repairs could be made to the
liner. Following the repairs, the liquid level was raised. Facility representatives stated that any
bottom leakage would be plugged from natural chemical reactions.
Cell 1 receives all residuals from ore processing, including any liquids that may include diesel,
kerosene, etc. Additionally, the water recovered from the chloroform plume pump and treat
system is placed in Cell 1. The pond contents have a pH of approximately 2 and contain high
sulfate and salts. The pond is sampled on an annual basis. The facility also submits an annual
tailings evaluation report which is accessible in a link that was provided to the EPA by the state
in an email prior to the site visit.
The EPA asked if the facility had considered replacing Cell 1 due to age and construction. The
facility stated that the leak detection system for Cell 1 is not detecting leakage from this unit.
They also stated that, should there be a problem, the evaporation pond liquid could be quickly
pumped to Cell 4b and Cell 1 easily remediated.
There are four monitoring wells (three downgradient) and one chloroform well to be sampled for
Cell 1. There are a leak detection system and monitoring wells (80 to 100 feet to first aquifer),
and groundwater flows approximately 1 foot/year. The state added that there is a compliance
point well for the state for leak detection. Additionally, two state hydrogeologists review the
uranium mill reports.
During the site visit, the inspectors were shown Cell 1. A point-red alarm means there is4iquid in
the sump. Freeboard measurements are taken weekly using a story pole and transit. There are a
minimum of four inlets observed to Cell 1. The liner is covered with soil to prevent UV
exposure.
5
Cell 2
Cell 2 is in closure and no longer receiving tailings or liquids. It is 67 acres, was built in May
1980, and has a single 30-mil PVC FML. Cell 2 contains Mill tailings, has an interim cover, and
is closed to future tailings disposal.
The Cell 2 radon flux is down to 0.5 picocuries. A third party company, TellCo, out of Grand
Junction, monitors for radon using Method 115, as required by NESHAPS, placing 100 canisters
across the cell. The facility reports the average radon reading to the state.
The facility is placing a Phase 1 cover on Cell 2. A Stipulation and Consent Agreement (SCA)
was executed on February 23, 2017, regarding the Cell 2 cover. The SCA includes the Phase 1
cover construction, the test section design and construction, the test section monitoring, the
performance criteria, settlement monitoring and performance criteria, reporting, determination of
the performance of the cover design, Phase 2 cover construction, revegetation, credit against
reclamation cost. The SCA required that the Cell 2 Phase 1 cover placement commence in April
2016 and be completed on or before August 2017 or by a later date as approved by the state. The
facility constructed a performance monitoring test section with the Cell 2 cover concurrently with
the Phase 2 cover placement. The Test Section is a 100 ft. by 100 ft. test plot, for which the
facility will monitor vegetatiomand piezometers over a 7-year process. The first layer of the
permanent cover, placed in Phase 1, will be approximately four feet thick. The final cover, placed
in Phase 2, will include a radon barrier, root-resistant barrier, and a nine-foot thick final cover
that is supposed to last 1000 years.
The state described the vegetation on the evapotranspiration cover as being native materials such
as grasses that do not have deep roots. The infiltration barrier will also discourage burrowing
animals. The facility added that the cover will be sloped to address runoff and ponding concerns.
During the physical portion of the site visit, it was noted that Cell 2 was covered by Phase 1 soils.
A test patch had been established for an evaporative cover with a dedicated meteorological
station. The facility monitors both infiltration and vegetation.
Cell 3
Cell 3 is 71 acres, was constructed in September 1982, and has a single 30-mil PVC FML. Cell 3
contains Mill tailings. It also accepts other Mill wastes and 1 le(2) material from in-situ recovery
operations. Cell 3 is in the final stages of filling. The facility is also putting Phase 1 cover on Cell
3, the initial step toward closure. A portion of Cell 3 has a 1 lA foot cover. It was noted during the
physical portion of the site visit that trash had been placed on the open, active part of the cell.
Cell 4a
Cell 4a receives liquids and tailings (sands). Cell 4a is 40 acres and was relined in 2008. Cell 4a
is double-lined with a 60 ml HOPE liner and a leak detection system. A monitoring well along
the berm was noted during the physical portion of the site visit.
Cell 4b
Cell 4b is 40 acres, was constructed in 2011, and is double-lined. Cell 4B is used for evaporation
of mill solutions. All ponds can overflow into Cell 4b. It is used as an evaporation pond only.
Any leakage in 4a or 4b is pumped back into the cell. It was noted during the physical site visit
6
that Cell 4b had aluminum sulfate crystals on the side above the liquid level. Approximately
67,000 gallons have been pumped out of the leak detection system of this cell in approximately
five years of operation.
Closure of Roberts Pond and Current Management of Stormwater
Roberts Pond, a stonn water pond, was removed approximately three years ago. Storm water
now goes to Cell 1. The stormwater plan, as part of their groundwater discharge permit, allows
no standing water. Any spills or releases to sumps, as well as other spills, stay onsite and go to
the cells eventually.
Facility Plumes
The groundwater flow direction is predominantly southwest at approximately one foot/year.
There are two identified plumes at the facility: a chloroform plume and a nitrate plume, both of
which are being addressed under enforcement orders with the state. When the state became the
site lead, the monitoring system network went from 17 to 75 wells, with slug tests being
performed on every new well.
Chloroform Plume
On August 23, 1999, the state issued the facility a Notice of Violation and Groundwater
Corrective Action Order to initiate a contamination investigation of the groundwater based on the
detection of chloroform and other constituents. On September 16, 2015, a state order approved
the Corrective Action Plan for the chloroform plume. The facility has delineated the extent of the
chloroform plume. They are performing pump and treat and placing the contaminated water into
Cell 1. The facility performed soil gas testing and did not find a source to remediate. Before the
mill was built, there was a temporary lab located here used for ore buying. According to facility
representatives, early mill lab wastes were discharged to a leach field, and chloroform from
locals was also dumped down the drain into the leach field. Current lab wastes go to the tailings
cells as 1 l(e)2 wastes.
Nitrate Plume
Nitrate was first detected as part of the investigation of a chloroform plume discovered in a
perched well in 1999. Nineteen temporary perched zone nitrate wells have been installed to
delineate and monitor the nitrate. Nitrate concentrations at downgradient wells have been
relatively stable. There are no known unaddressed ongoing sources; however, it has not been
possible to quantify or confirm the potential historic sources. The facility and state entered into a
Stipulated Consent Agreement on January 28, 2009, requiring Energy Fuel Resources to
complete a Contaminant Investigation Report, which was submitted in January 2010. During the
site visit, the facility stated that the source of the nitrate plume was in question, since there was a
military base on site where they staged Pershing Missiles. The military had access to the whole
site in the early 1960s. Additionally, the nitrate, per the facility, is located upgradient of the
facility operations. The state and facility decided to focus on addressing the plume, rather than
continuing definition of potential sources. A corrective action plan (CAP) was developed that
was approved on May 7, 2012. A Stipulation and Consent Order (SCO) for the May 7, 2012,
CAP was finalized on December 12, 2012. The SCO required nitrate source control in the
vicinity of the Ammonium Sulfate Crystal Tanks and also required pumping to establish
hydraulic control of the plume.
7
«
Air Monitorina
The predominant air flow direction is to the northeast. In the evenings, the predominant direction
is to the southeast. Air monitoring stations are located outside the restricted area. The facility
operates their own weather station as well as fence-line radon monitoring. In addition, they
perform mill dose modeling. The facility was informed that the EPA and state inspectors would
be conducting an air inspection the following week, which would include the evaluation of
compliance with the requirements of the new NESHAPS Subpart W rule.
Interactions with Tribe
Ms. Bailley oversees the Ute Mountain Ute water grant and also provides technical assistance to
the Tribe. A copy of her report for this site visit is included as Attachment 4. Some of the
concerns with the characterization of the site groundwater contamination were discussed,
including the age of the isotope study conducted by the University of Utah about ten years ago,
changing site conditions, including draining of the wildlife ponds, changing groundwater
concentrations in MW-22 and other wells, the necessity of the installation of additional wells,
and inclusion of additional parameters in the groundwater monitoring program. The EPA and the
facility agreed to hold a follow-up meeting on groundwater issues.
Records Review'
The inspectors reviewed the Bill of Lading records for CERCLA material shipments for the
Dawn Mining materials, which was the only material from a CERCLA-funded activity being
received by the facility at the time of the inspection and comprises only 2 to 3% of the mill’s
feedstock. They received a list of the Alternate Feed from Dawn Mining from May 18, 2016,
through December 12, 2016, which consisted of 208 bags total. The facility had processed all but
62 super sacs, which were remaining in the ore storage yard. The inspectors also looked at the
Ore Storage Inspections as part of the plant weekly inspection report logs.
Ms. Jacobson reviewed the March 2017 daily, weekly, and monthly inspections for cells. She
also reviewed the slimes recovery test for Cell 2. The recovery test duration is five to six days.
The slime builds up to its height, stabilizes for 3 hours, then the pump is turned back on to
determine slimes level and to indicate whether the slime level is decreasing over time.
It was noted by EPA that the facility has a good inspection system and leak detection system for
the newer cells. In addition to required inspections by the facility, the state conducts at least 20
inspections annually.
Inspection Close-Out and Discussion of MW-22
Following a lunch break, the facility staff and inspection team drove to MW-22, a monitoring
well installed in approximately 1994, where there have been changing groundwater
concentrations and detections of constituents of concern to the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. The
purpose was to show the distance of the well from the mill. The facility representatives explained
that, based on constituents found, groundwater flow rate and direction, they question whether the
8
t-
detections are from mill operations. The need for additional characterization of the hydrogeology
in the area southeast of the mill site between the tailings ponds and MW-22 was briefly
discussed. It was to be one of the topics in a follow-up meeting on groundwater issues.
During the closeout, the EPA expressed their preference that Cells 4a and 4b be used for
management of tailings and liquids from the processing of CERCLA materials, since these are
double-lined cells with leak detection systems.
The inspection team thanked the facility for their time and courtesy and departed.
Acceptability Status and Determination
The site visit is only one factor which is considered in this determination. The information
gathered from discussions with the state and facility personnel, compliance with state and federal
regulations, observations during the physical site visit, review of documents provided by the
facility and available on the state’s website, as well as those reviewed during the site visit, will
also factor into the EPA’s determination of the facility’s continued acceptability to receive
materials or wastes from CERCLA-funded actions.
Recommendations Based on Site Visit
Based on the site visit observations, discussions with the state, and review of materials prior to
and since the visit, wc offer the following recommendations for the facility’s consideration: 1)
installation of an impermeable liner for portions of the ore pad for unprocessed ore and feedstock
while in operation and until closure; 2) removal of Cell 1 from service for installation of a double
liner and leak detection system; 3) installation of additional monitoring wells in the southeast to
characterize the groundwater flow in the direction of the White Mesa community; and 4)
consideration of a new-isotopic study since site conditions have changed in the last decade.
Prepared by:
o(w
Linda Jacobson, EPA Inspector
& I M I 30 IK
Date 1
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Copy of list of requested items to be reviewed during site visit
Attachment 2: Copies of Documents Provided by Facility from May 3, 2017, Meeting on
Disk and Accompanying Facility Notes
Attachment 3: Copies of Documents Received during Site Visit
Attachment 4: Treasure Bailley’s report
9
ATTACHMENT 1
Copy of List of Requested Items
Be Reviewed During Site Visit
Request they be prepared to discuss and present records for some of these items during
the site visit:
Current permits and licenses: issued or in renewal, who is the issuing authority?
Compliance status with permits and licenses: any NOVs, Warning Letters, censures, etc
within the last 3 years
Process overview
Drive-around/walk around
Spills within the last 3 years (records)
Incident reports, especially those triggering the Contingency Plan (records)
Waste receiving: screening criteria, management of rejects
Wastes/products shipped to other facilities
% of materials from CERCLA sites or clean-ups: list of CERCLA clients for last 3 years
Cell construction, repairs, O&M
Freeboard inspection/management: auto alarms or visual (inspection records)
Leachate quantities and how managed (records)
Leak detections in cells: quantities, how managed (records of volumes)
Cells/ponds: number and usage; if in closure, closure status
Storage units: pads, tanks
Dust control measures
Air monitoring: locations, parameters, frequency, alarms
Groundwater releases: aquifers at site, plume management (MNA, pump and treat)
Groundwater monitoring well locations, wildlife pond
Control/management of run-on/nm-off
Surface water monitoring/seeps: locations, parameters, frequency
ATTACHMENT 2
Copies of Documents Provided by
Facility from May 3, 2017 Meeting
On disk and Accompanying Facility Notes
From Kathy Weinel, Energy Fuels
RECEIVED
MAY 0 5 2017
Linda,
Office of Enforcement, Compliance
Attached to this note is a USB drive with the documents discussed during our meeting on ^us^ce
5/3/17. Below are a few notes.
• As discussed, the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ), Division of Waste
Management and Radiation Control (DWMRC) has regulatory authority (as an agreement state
with the NRC) over the Mill. The current Groundwater Discharge Permit (GWDP) and
Radioactive Materials License (RML) are included on the USB drive. We are in timely renewal.
The Draft revisions to both the GWDP and RML are currently out for Public Comment. The
Drafts are available at: httDs://dec|.tuah.gov/NewsNotices/notices/waste/index.htm#efr.
• In addition, we have an Air Approval Order issued by UDEQ, Division of Air Quality (DAQ).
That document is on the USB drive.
• EFRI has not had an NOV, warning letter etc. in the last 3 years.
• There have been no incident reports triggering the contingency plan in general or specifically in
association with the Dawn Mining Material.
• There have been no RQ spills of any kind or in association with Dawn Mining.
• We do not consider the Dawn Mining material waste. It is Alternate Feed (AF) as discussed in
the meeting. We have not had any rejected shipments of Dawn Mining.
• We are a zero discharge facility - we ship NO waste off-site (1 !e2). Even our office trash is
disposed of on-site.
• The only CERCLA material received in the last 3 years is the Dawn Mining material.
• Cell construction was discussed. The construction reports (should you want to read them) are
available for download on the DWMRC website. I could provide electronic copies in the future,
but due to the sheer size, it would take some coordination with you. There are brief descriptions
of the design and construction for all of the cells in the GWDP. Any Cell repairs are reported to
DWMRC in the quarterly Discharge Minimization Report (DMT). Q4 2016 DMT Report is
included on the USB drive.
• Freeboard monitoring and reporting are in the quarterly DMT Report (USB).
• We have no leachate.
« Leak Detection monitoring and reporting is included in'the quarterly DMT Report.
• Cells were discussed in the meeting. Cell 2 is in closure. Cell 1 and 4B are evaporation ponds.
Cell 3 and 4A are active tailings cells.
• Air monitoring stations - our effluent monitoring program is compliant with NRC Reg. Guide
4.14. DWMRC has modified the program to include more constituents and locations than is
required by the Reg. Guide. The reporting of the effluent monitoring program is included in the
Semi-Annual Effluent Monitoring Report (latest report is included on the USB drive).
• Groundwater was discussed. The Q4 2016 Quarterly GW report is included on the USB drive.
• Tab A-1 in the GW report shows all of the locations for all of the monitoring wells at the Mill.
• We are a zero discharge facility. We do not discharge off-site. Run on is limited by
berms/diversion ditches surrounding the site.
• Surface water monitoring/seeps sampling is conducted per DWMRC requirements. The
DWMRC-approved Sampling Plan is available on the DWMRC website. Per DWMRC they
have provided links to all of the reports (annual) since 2012.
• You mentioned that you wanted to review the tailings inspection reports. I will have 2017 ready
and available. Should you decide you want any prior years please let me know in advance so I
can have those retrieved from storage.
If there is anything else that comes up, please feel free to call me 303-389-4134.
ATTACHMENT 3
Copies of Documents Received
During Site Visit
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
an
d
Va
n
a
d
i
u
m
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
K'-e.^ c4
Wiife Hi
P’em;<sggi Flow Otaorgum
2 l ^ pn\
Ors SLockpils
.X
Vanadium Product io
Shipment
Uranium Product to
Shipment
Dawn Mining
<?K'
^|! o
Energy Fuels Dawn Dawn WMM Dawn %WMM %Dry
Scale house Weight lbs Tons Tons moisture moisture Tons
Carry over from 2015.1,932,620 1,931,460 964 968 69.0 67.6 313.1 303 Super Sack1
- 'Receiyed-2G16:r:’4^i-32£|35*' •1,340,975 .-670 : 66?• '•'bo//-'' ' ' ' .208'- Super Sacf
Total Received:3,255,260 3,272,435 1,635 1,629 69 0 68.5 513.4 511 Super Sacf
VTD Ran:1,322,628 453 449
Historical.1,438 68.5
On hand generator extimates-1,932,632 200 69 68.5 63 1 62 Super Sack1
On hand White Mesa Mill estimates-191 68.5 60.2
Recepits 2016 Energy Fuels Dawn Dawn WMM Dawn %WMM %Dry
Date Received Scale house Weight lbs Tons Tons moisture moisture Tons Bill of lading #Discription
5/18/2016 42,420 42,834 21 4 21 2 69.0 73.1 5.7 16-DMC-01 7 Super Sack'
5/23/2016 44,680 44,696 22.3 22.3 69.0 72.0 6.2 16-DMC-02 7 Super Sack:
6/6/2016 44,720 45,310 22 7 22.4 69 0 72 9 6.0 16-DMC-03 7 Super Sack'
6/8/2016 44,080 44,621 22 3 22.0 69.0 72.4 6.1 16-DMC-05 7 Super Sack'
6/10/2016 43,760 44,372 22.2 21.9 69 0 71.1 6 3 16-DMC-04 7 Super Sack'
6/13/2016 44,480 45,014 22 5 22.2 69 0 70 8 6.5 16-DMC-06 7 Super Sack'
6/20/2016 45,600 45,878 22.9 22 8 69.0 71.4 6.5 16-DMC-07 7 Super Sack1
6/27/2016 45,460 45,440 22 7 22 7 69.0 68 8 6.1 16-DMC-08 7 Super Sack'
7/1/2016 45,300 45,614 22 8 22.7 69.0 69.8 6.8 16-DMC-09 7 Super Sack:
7/11/2016 45,640 46,640 23 3 22.8 69.0 68.4 7 3 16-DMC-10 7 Super Sack:
7/18/2016 44,360 45,048 22.5 22.2 69 0 66.8 7 4 16-DMC-ll 7 Super Sack'
7/27/2016 45,120 45,862 22.9 22.6 69.0 68.9 7.0 16-DMC-12 7 Super Sack:
8/4/2016 44,180 45,504 22 8 22.1 69.0 69.0 6.9 16-DMC-13 7 Super Sack'
8/18/2016 44,880 45,760 22.9 22.4 69.0 66.8 7 5 16-DMC-14 7 Super Sack'
8/26/2016 45,380 46,288 23.1 22.7 69.0 69.0 7.1 16-DMC-15 7 Super Sack-
9/6/2016 45,860 46,734 23 4 22.9 69.0 68.3 7 3 16-DMC-16 7 Super Sack-
9/8/2016 44,980 45,846 22.9 22.5 69 0 68.2 7 2 16-DMC-17 7 Super Sack'
9/16/2016 44,460 45,110 22.6 22 2 69.0 66.5 7 4 16-DMC-18 7 Super Sack-
9/21/2016 45,200 45,866 22 9 22.6 69 0 66.9 7 5 16-DMC-19 7 Super Sack'
10/6/2016 44,120 44,489 22 2 22 1 69 0 67 7 7.1 16-DMC-20 7 Super Sack-
10/6/2016 43,200 44,100 22 1 21 6 69.0 68 1 6 9 16-DMC-21 7 Super Sack-
10/13/2016 43,920 44,684 22 3 22.0 69.0 66.5 7 4 16-DMC-22 7 Super Sack-
10/17/2016 45,220 45,672 22 8 22.6 69 0 66.3 76 16-DMC-23 7 Super Sack-
10/25/2016 44,820 45,054 22 5 22.4 69.0 65 9 7 6 16-DMC-24 7 Super Sack:
11/15/2016 44,660 45,214 22 6 22 3 69 0 67 5 7 2 16-DMC-25 7 Super Sack'
11/15/2016 44,140 44,536 22.3 22.1 69 0 68 0 7 0 16-DMC-26 7 Super Sack'
11/21/2016 45,260 46,052 23 0 22.6 69 0 68 1 7 2 16-OMC-27 7 Super Sack-
11/22/2016 44,440 45,273 22 6 22 2 69 0 67.9 7 2 16-DMC-28 7 Super Sack-
11/22/2016 43,860 44,818 22 4 21.9 69 0 70 9 6 4 16-DMC-29 7 Super Sack-
12/12/2016 28,440 28,646 14 3 14 2 69 0 16-DMC-30 5 Super Sack-
1,322,640 1,340,975 670 661 0 69 0.70 200 2 208 Super SackTotals
^e_c.N ci •
E>|lO / / 7
ALTERNATIVE FEED
Dawn Mining
Date Received
Energy Fuels
Scale house
Dawn
Weight lbs
Dawn
Tons
WMM
Tons
Dawn %
moisture
WMM %
moisture
Dry
Tons Bill of lading #Description
5/18/2016 42,420 42,834 21.4 21.2 69.0 73.1 5.7 16-DMC-01 7 Bags
5/23/2016 44,680 44,696 22.3 22.3 69.0 72.0 6.2 16-DMC-02 7 Bags
• 6/6/2016 44,720 45,310 22.7 22.4 69.0 72.9 6.0 16-DMC-03 7 Bags
6/8/2016 44,080 44,621 22.3 22.0 69.0 72.4 6.1 16-DMC-05 7 Bags
6/10/2016 43,760 44,372 22.2 21.9 69.0 71.1 6.3 16-DMC-04 7 Bags
6/13/2016 44,480 45,014 22.5 22.2 69.0 70.8 6.5 16-DMC-06 7 Bags
6/20/2016 45,600 45,878 22.9 22.8 69.0 71.4 6.5 16-DMC-07 7 Bags
6/27/2016 45,460 45,440 22.7 22.7 69.0 68.8 6.1 16-DMC-08 7 Bags
7/1/2016 45,300 45,614 22.8 22.7 69.0 69.8 6.8 16-DMC-09 7 Bags
7/11/2016 45,640 46,640 23.3 22.8 69.0 68.4 7.3 16-DMC-10 7 Bags
7/18/2016 44,360 45,048 22.5 22.2 69.0 66.8 7.4 16-DMC-ll 7 Bags
7/27/2016 45,120 45,862 22.9 22.6 69.0 68.9 7.0 16-DMC-12 7 Bags
8/4/2016 44,180 45,504 22.8 22.1 69.0 69.0 6.9 16-DMC-13 7 Bags
8/18/2016 44,880 45,760 22.9 22.4 69.0 66.8 7.5 16-DMC-14 7 Bags
8/26/2016 45,380 46,288 23.1 22.7 69.0 69.0 7.1 16-DMC-15 7 Bags
9/6/2016 45,860 46,734 23.4 22.9 69.0 68.3 7.3 16-DMC-16 7 Bags
9/8/2016 44,980 45,846 22.9 22.5 69.0 68.2 7.2 16-DMC-17 7 Bags
9/16/2016 44,460 45,110 22.6 22.2 69.0 66.5 - 7.4 16-DMC-18 7 Bags
9/21/2016 45,200 45,866 22.9 22.6 69.0 66.9 7.5 16-DMC-19 7 Bags
10/6/2016 44,120 44,489 22.2 22.1 69.0 67.7 7.1 16-DMC-20 7 Bags
10/6/2016 43,200 44,100 22.1 21.6 69.0 68.1 6.9 16-DMC-21 7 Bags
10/13/2016 43,920 44,684 22.3 22.0 69.0 66.5 7.4 16-DMC-22 7 Bags
10/17/2016 45,220 45,672 22.8 22.6 69.0 66.3 7.6 16-DMC-23 7 Bags
10/25/2016 44,820 45,054 22.5 22.4 69.0 65.9 7.6 16-DMC-24 7 Bags
11/15/2016 44,140 44,536 22.3 22.1 69.0 68.0 7.0 16-DMC-26 7 Bags
11/15/2016 44,660 45,214 22.6 22.3 69.0 67.5 7.2 16-DMC-25 7 Bags
11/21/2016 45,260 46,052 23.0 22.6 69.0 68.1 7.2 16-DMC-27 7 Bags
11/22/2016 44,440 45,273 22.6 22.2
11/22/2016 43,860 44,818 22.4 21.9
12/12/2016 28,440 28,646 14.3 14.2
Totals:1,322,640 1,340,975 670 661
Remaining dry tons for license condition:
69.0 67.9 7.2 16-DMC-28 7 Bags
69.0 70.9 6.4 16-DMC-29 7 Bags
69.0 73.1 3.8 16-DMC-30 5 Bags
0.69 0.69 204.0 208
3982.9
ATTACHMENT 4
Treasure Bailley’s Site Visit Report
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 8
(5
1595 Wynkoop Street
DENVER, CO 80202-1129
Phone [phone]
http //www.epa gov/region08
June 21,2017
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: White Mesa Uranium Mill Facility Site Visit - CERCLA OSR
FROM: Treasure Bailley, 80WP-AAR
TO:Linda Jacobson, 8ENF-RC
PURPOSE: Overview of May 10, 2017 site visit and recommendations for additional protection of
underground sources of drinking water (USDW) and prevention of off-site groundwater contaminant
migration.
BACKGROUND
On May 10, 2017, Region 8 EPA staff participated in a site visit of the Energy Fuels White Mesa
Uranium Mill. Participants from EPA included Linda Jacobson, David Duster, and Treasure Bailley.
Personnel from Energy Fuels included David Frydenlund, David Turk, and Logan Shumway. Ryan
Johnson of Utah Department of Waste Management and Radiation Control (DWMRC) was also
present.
The visit included a discussion and site overview, followed by a tour of the facility. Initial discussions
included record keeping, the age and construction of the liners and leak detection systems for the
tailings and evaporation cells, location and routine sampling of monitoring wells, history and
remediation activities related to the chloroform and chloride/nitrate/nitrite plumes, off-site air
monitoring stations, on-site storm water management, and site reclamation. The facility tour included
stops at the Dawn Mining bag storage area, Cell 1 (evaporation cell), the experimental ET test cover
reclamation area, Cells 4A and 4B (tailings cells), and Monitoring Well 22 (MW-22).
The following are priority concerns associated with the White Mesa Uranium Mill regarding the
potential for contamination of the shallow aquifer and the migration of any contaminant plume
toward the Ute Mountain Ute White Mesa community and potentially, eventually, into the deeper
public drinking water supply. These comments relate specifically to discussions that took place
between EPA, Utah DWMRC, and the Energy Fuels/White Mesa Uranium Mill staff on the May 10
site visit regarding the potential for uncontrolled releases.
Rick Arnold (Region 8 EPA) has provided additional hydrologic evaluations related to the shallow
aquifer and groundwater flow in the southeast portion of the site. His determinations are included as
part of the discussion related to the need for further groundwater characterization in the southeast.
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Energy Fuels appears to keeps thorough records, tracks tons of feed through the mill, and follows a
rigorous inspection schedule to identify any safety concerns or immediate threats of significant
uncontrolled releases.
The ore pad is constructed of compacted soil. It was explained that these contaminated soils will be
left for reclamation and that risk of infiltration is low. A concrete or other impermeable impoundment
for unprocessed ores would be more protective of shallow groundwater, which may be impacted by
contaminant infiltration over the operational life of the facility.
As discussed during the site visit, the age and construction of the single layer, 30 ml PVC Cell 1 liner
is of concern. Installation of this liner and leak detection system occurred more than 35 years ago
(1981), and engineering considerations at the time of installation assumed a 15-year project life1. This
design would not meet current Best Available Technology (BAT) standards for this type of
impoundment. A discussion related to the integrity of the liner centered on Energy Fuels’ assertion
that there is no evidence that the cell is leaking. This, in my opinion, is subjective in that to date the
line of evidence used to make this assertion is, in part, a study providing an alternative explanation
for observed changes in ground water chemistry related to pyrite oxidation2. While this hypothesis
may be true, the study did not specifically address the question of whether observed changes in
ground water chemistry near the cells could also be related to uncontrolled releases of cell liquids.
Additional discussions concerning uncontrolled releases included the 2007 University of Utah
isotopic study3 demonstrating mostly “old” ground water was present below the mill site at the time
of the study, and a lack of significant increases in chloride concentrations outside of the existing
chloride/nitrate/nitrite plume. Lack of evidence for “young” water infiltrating 10 years ago does not
effectively demonstrate that no releases have occurred since the time of the study, and the assertion
that a lack of significant changes in chloride concentrations in the monitoring wells is evidence that
the cell(s) are not leaking is insufficient. While chloride is commonly referred to as among the most
effective contaminant tracers, the behavior of individual constituents, including chloride, in complex
chemical mixtures in contact with various geologic media is difficult to predict4-3,6. For this reason,
analytical results should be evaluated as a whole, rather than considering only a single constituent.
Long screened intervals (>50 feet in some wells)7 in existing monitoring wells facilitates dilution of
any contaminant present, increasing the difficulty of identifying an uncontrolled release, and
increasing the need for consideration of site-specific attenuation and dilution factors for effective
evaluation. The difficulty in accurately determining concentrations of potential contaminants
provides an additional incentive to ensure that cell liners are as protective as can be achieved.
The leak detection system of Cell 1 is designed to identify only significant leaks. Persistent, smaller
volume leaks have the same potential to contaminate groundwater as single, high volume leaks. The
Operator asserted that small-volume leaks were unlikely due to a “hole plugging” effect of the
solution coming into contact with the underlying sediments. While there may be a scenario in which
such a phenomenon may take place, it is unclear whether the requisite conditions exist. Calcareous
materials are generally more likely than silica to react with low-pFl solutions, and cell construction
reports indicate that calcareous soils were specifically excluded or removed from materials
underlying the liner8. Without a demonstration that leaking solution would react with the underlying
sediments to “plug” any holes in the liner, this self-healing system cannot be relied on to prevent
small but persistent uncontrolled leaks that may go undetected by the existing leak detection system.
Updating both the liner and leak detection system for Cell 1 would provide greater confidence that
the ground water is being protected against uncontrolled releases from the evaporation cell.
The hydrogeology in the area southeast of the mill site is relatively uncharacterized and in need of
more data. Installing additional wells to the southeast of the mill site, in the area between tailings
Cells 4A/B and MW-22 would help characterize the hydrogeology of the area and provide additional
water quality monitoring in the direction of the White Mesa community.
The following considerations explain the need for additional data in the southeast portion of the mill
site:
• Geologic studies in the area have identified two sets of vertical joints, approximately
perpendicular to each other, in the Dakota-Burro Canyon Formation9’.10. Should similar
joints or fractures exist at depth they have the potential to locally direct groundwater flow
and migration of contaminants from uncontrolled releases.
• Lithologic and drilling logs commonly indicate horizontal and vertical fractures and
intervals of conglomerate or coarse friable sand1', which could provide preferential flow
paths for groundwater, both laterally through the shallow aquifer and potentially vertically
into the deeper aquifer if faults or significant vertical fractures exist.
• Based on water levels for MW-17, MW-22, Piez-04, and Piez-05, saturated thickness
appears to be substantially greater to the southeast than to the southwest of the mill site,
and aquifer transmissivity would then also likely be greater.
• Because few water-level data exist for the area to the southeast, the shape of the water
table is unknown. However, water-table contours likely curve northward to reflect
topography (see attached) rather than maintain a straight line to the southeast as shown by
the kriged water-table maps presented by HydroGeoChem, Inc.7
• If the water table reflects topography, groundwater flow paths from the east side of the
mill site could be toward MW-22 and farther to the southeast.
A brief discussion regarding the construction of a proposed new tailings cell (Cell 5) did not include a
discussion regarding installation of additional monitoring wells, but I would assume this would be a
requirement. If this is the case it may provide an opportunity for consultation with the Ute Mountain
Ute Tribal community regarding placement of the new monitoring wells.
In summary, while the facility has a system in place to quickly identify any significant, immediate
concerns, some additional measures could be taken to prevent harder to detect impacts to resources
such as groundwater. A new liner and leak detection system for Cell 1 would provide a greater degree
of confidence that no uncontrolled releases to groundwater are occurring. A more comprehensive
review of the hydrogeology, including consideration of enhanced preferential flow through fractures
or other intervals of high permeability and better characterization of the hydrogeology in the
southeast portion of the mill would help understand the transport of contaminants related to any
uncontrolled releases. Creating an impermeable ore pad would reduce the amount of remediation
required upon closure, and further protect groundwater resources over the operational life of the
facility. In addition to the above recommendations, the University of Utah3 and USGS12 reports both
detail additional monitoring that could be implemented to identify uncontrolled releases to
groundwater, and should be considered.
Please feel free to contact me directly with any questions or concerns.
Treasure Bailley
Office of Water-Aquifer and Aquatic Resources Protection Unit
U.S. EPA Region 8
Direct: 303.312.6480
References:
1. D’Appolonla Consulting Engineers, Inc., 1979. Engineers Report, Tailings Management
System, White Mesa Uranium Project, Blanding, Utah.
2. Hydro Geo Chem, Inc., 2012. Investigation of pyrite in the perched zone, White Mesa
Uranium Mill Site, Blanding, Utah.
3. Hurst, T.G., and Solomon, D.K., 2008. Summary of work completed, data results,
interpretations and recommendations for the July 2007 sampling event at Denison Mines,
USA, White Mesa Uranium Mill near Blanding, Utah. University of Utah Department of
Geology and Geophysics.
4. Quirk, J.P., 1960. Negative and positive adsorption of chloride by kaolinite. Nature, no. 4746,
p. 253-254.
5. Kafkafi, U., Xu, G., Imas, P., Magen, H., and Tarchitzky, J. Potassium and chloride in crops
and soils: the role of potassium chloride fertilizer in crop nutrition, Johnston, A.E., ed., IPI
Research Topics No. 22.
6. Yimprasert, S., Elevens, R.L., and Chaewsamoot, S., 1976. Movement of nitrate, chloride,
and potassium in a sandy loam soil. Plant and Soil, 45, 227-234.
7. Hydro Geo Chem, Inc., 2014. Hydrogeology of the White Mesa Uranium Mill, Blanding,
Utah.
8. D’Appolonla Consulting Engineers, Inc., 1982. Construction Report, Initial Phase - Tailings
Management System, White Mesa Uranium Project, Blanding, Utah.
9. Dames and Moore, 1978. Environmental Report, White Mesa Uranium project, San Juan
County, Utah, prepared for Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc.
10. Umetco Minerals Corporation, Peel Environmental Services, 1993. Groundwater study, White
Mesa facility, Blanding, Utah.
11. Titan Environmental, 1994. Hydrogeologic evaluation of White Mesa Uranium Mill, prepared
for Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc.
12. Naftz, D.L., Ranalli, A.J., Rowland, R.C., and Marston, T.M., 2011. Assessment of potential
migration of radionuclides and trace elements from the White Mesa uranium mill to the Ute
Mountain Ute Reservation and surrounding areas, southeastern Utah: U.S. Geological Survey
Science Investigations Report 2011-5231, 146 p.
flow paths, White Mesa, Utah