Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Canadian Company Energy Fuels’ interest in stopping Bears Ears National Monument may not be the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle as much as the tail end of radioactive waste. Their White Mesa Mill functions as an unofficial back-door nuclear waste dump. Bears Ears National Monument abuts White Mesa Mill property and it includes two White Mesa water sampling sites, according to Energy Fuel’s filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Why does Energy Fuels fear the water sampling sites being on public land? Are they lying about the results? At least the Italian Camorra mafia, according to Schiavone’s testimony, put German radioactive waste sludge in lead boxes before burying it in Italy, which is already superior to the US putting waste in poor quality metal cans. However, the handling of nuclear waste at White Mesa mill is of an even lower standard than most US radioactive waste, even though this is difficult to fathom.

Springs in the Burro Canyon are used by tribal members; groundwater flow is from the Mill south toward the reservation.” https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/wed2_6whitemesa.pdf

In Canadian Uranium Miner Energy Fuels Inc.’s 2016 Sec.gov report they state:
In addition, President Obama designated the Bears Ears National Monument by executive order in December of 2016, which comprises 1.35 million acres of land in San Juan County, Utah. The designated land includes a portion of the County road which the Company relies on for access to its Daneros Project as well as abuts up against a portion of the property boundary of the White Mesa Mill and encompasses two water sampling sites the Company monitors for the Mill. At this time, the impact to the Company of the Bears Ears National Monument designation is not known, however it is possible that the Daneros Project and/or the White Mesa Mill could become subject to additional requirements, restrictions and costs as a result of the designation.” https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1385849/000138584917000006/efr-20161231x10k.htm

White Mesa Mill is a sneaky unofficial nuclear waste dump which is jeopardizing drinking water and air quality. Sadly this case is pitting water quality of some of the Cherokee, who are trying to get rid of radioactive waste (Sequoyah Fuels Corporation (SFC) former uranium conversion site in Gore, Oklahoma), which endangers their water supply, against that of Western tribes, especially the Ute.
White Mesa Mill
The Washington Post reported that not only did Energy Fuels submit a public comment, but it hired Faegre Baker Daniels lobbyists to address this and other US government policies impacting the company. They were led by Andrew Wheeler “who is awaiting Senate confirmation as the Environmental Protection Agency’s deputy secretary.” WaPo further reports that in the first nine months of the year that the lobbying firm was paid $30,000. (Isn’t that rather meager for so many acres?) They met on July 17 to discuss Bear Ears with two Zinke advisors. Read: “Uranium firm urged Trump officials to shrink Bears Ears National Monument: The president’s proclamation moves much of the area’s uranium deposits out of protected areas.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/uranium-firm-urged-trump-officials-to-shrink-bears-ears-national-monument/2017/12/08/2eea39b6-dc31-11e7-b1a8-62589434a581_story.html

Whereas a conventional mill operator typically pays for uranium ore feedstock, a mill owner is paid to accept and dispose of uranium-bearing ‘alternate feeds.” Alternate feed is another name for radioactive wastes that contain small amounts of uranium-bearing materials. By processing these radioactive wastes as alternate feed, White Mesa Mill provides hazardous waste sites across the country a means to dispose these wastes without being subject to various federal and state laws (such as, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)), and without having to undertake removal and remediation actions. The Environmental Protection Agency has recognized that this practice has potential for abuse where lower disposal fees at economically marginal uranium mills can result in “sham processing” to convert CERCLA wastes into non-CERCLA mill tailings. Utah regulators have expressed concern that less, stringent, cheaper, non-CERCLA disposal of radioactive wastes at uranium mills pose problems, particularly where the technical and economic viability of uranium recovery is doubtful…. During 2011, 2012, and 2013, the White Mesa Mill reported consecutive exceedances of groundwater compliance limits under the White Mesa Mill’s GWDP for several constituents in several wells. Instead of issuing fines or requiring compliance, Utah DEQ has agreed to change the groundwater standards. Utah DEQ is aware of repeated and ongoing Subpart W violations, but has not taken action to enforce the standards.” They also note that “The White Mesa Mill is releasing Radon-222, a cancer-causing gas emitted from the radioactive wastes generated from uranium milling. White Mesa Mill’s tailings impoundments, which store these milling wastes, are not conforming to mandatory CAA emissions limits and work practice standards.” (See Grand Canyon Trust v. Energy Fuels Resources. Case 2:14-cv-00243-CW-BCW Document 2 Filed 04/02/14)

Note that Energy Fuels Resources (EFR)’s White Mesa Mill has processed “Alternate Feed” for years, and perhaps only “Alternate Feed”:

https://www.eia.gov/uranium/production/annual/umills.php

According to a document obtained by the Washington Post, a meeting was scheduled between Energy Fuels and the Trump administration to discuss Bears Ears. Red boxes added to original.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4325169/Downey-Magallanes-Schedule-for-July-17-2017.pdf
(About Downey Magallanes: https://departmentofinfluence.org/person/downey-magallanes)

Energy Fuels had also submitted this comment:


https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4325155/Energy-Fuels-Resources-Inc-s-Letter-to-Interior.pdf

More excerpts from the lawsuit filed by Grand Canyon Trust against Energy Fuels – the same Canadian company that wants to mine uranium in the environs of the Grand Canyon and that had a fire at its Texas uranium mine last year, which was spotted by US Border Guards.
INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiff Grand Canyon Trust (Trust) brings this lawsuit to enforce violations of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. § 7412, against Energy Fuels Resources Inc. (Energy Fuels) at its White Mesa Uranium Mill. The White Mesa Mill is releasing Radon-222, a cancer-causing gas emitted from the radioactive wastes generated from uranium milling. White Mesa Mill’s tailings impoundments, which store these milling wastes, are not conforming to mandatory CAA emissions limits and work practice standards. 40 C.F.R. §§ 62.251 et seq. (Subpart W). These limits and standards are designed to curtail releases of Radon-222, which is a CAA-designated hazardous air pollutant. Id. Section 112 of the CAA prohibits Energy Fuels from operating White Mesa Mill and emitting Radon-222 in violation of these limits and standards. 42 U.S.C. § 7412(f)(4), § 7412(i)(3)(A). Consequently, in accordance with the CAA citizen suit provision, 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a), the Trust seeks relief that enforces the CAA emissions standards and limits and assesses civil penalties against Energy Fuels for these violations of law. Energy Fuels’ CAA violations pose a serious and continuing threat to nearby communities, the region’s people, and the environment that can be remedied by the statutory relief sought in this complaint. See e.g. 42 U.S.C. §§7604 (a),(d-e),(g)
.”
Case 2:14-cv-00243-CW-BCW Filed 04/02/14, Grand Canyon Trust v. Energy Fuels Resources.

26. Beginning in 1987, White Mesa Mill began accepting “alternate feed” for processing, supplementing the amount of uranium ore being milled. Whereas a conventional mill operator typically pays for uranium ore feedstock, a mill owner is paid to accept and dispose of uranium-bearing “alternate feeds.” Alternate feed is another name for radioactive wastes that contain small amounts of uranium-bearing materials. By processing these radioactive wastes as alternate feed, White Mesa Mill provides hazardous waste sites across the country a means to dispose these wastes without being subject to various federal and state laws (such as, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)), and without having to undertake removal and remediation actions.

The Environmental Protection Agency has recognized that this practice has potential for abuse where lower disposal fees at economically marginal uranium mills can result in “sham processing” to convert CERCLA wastes into non-CERCLA mill tailings. Utah regulators have expressed concern that less stringent, cheaper, non-CERCLA disposal of radioactive wastes at uranium mills pose problems, particularly where the technical and economic viability of uranium recovery is doubtful.” Case 2:14-cv-00243-CW-BCW, Filed 04/02/14 pp. 11-12, Grand Canyon Trust v. Energy Fuels Resources

Additional information from Grand Canyon Trust:
The state is planning to give Energy Fuels permission to process a radioactive sludge left over from enriching uranium at a defunct plant near the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma run by a company called Sequoyah Fuels…
* The mill was built on sacred ancestral lands of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, disturbing burial and other cultural sites. 
* Many residents in the communities of White Mesa and Bluff fear that the Navajo Sandstone aquifer, which provides drinking water to the area, will be contaminated. This primary drinking water aquifer lies underneath the mill site.
* State regulators may not be requiring Energy Fuels to guarantee that enough money will be available to clean up the mill if the company fails to do so. The current guarantee—a surety bond—is for about $20 million. Other uranium mills on the Colorado Plateau have cost more than $100 million to clean up.
” Excerpted from: https://www.grandcanyontrust.org/white-mesa-uranium-mill-fact-sheet (Emphasis our own.)

Stephen P. Antony CEO & Executive Director, Energy Fuels Inc. has a Total Calculated Compensation of over one million dollars ($1,441,465), but the stock is worth less than two dollars ( $1.90). https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=27958478&privcapId=880431. https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/UUUU:US
In December of 2014 it was worth $6.19. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1385849/000106299316008497/def14a.htm
NB: Energy Fuels also goes by Energy Fuels, Inc., as well as the name of some subsidiaries.

Among Energy Fuels Board Members are a representative of Korean Electric Power Co (now via KHNP), suggesting that the uranium may still go there after conversion, enrichment and/or fuel fabrication or to KEPCO projects such as the UAE. KEPCO apparently was their largest single customer and so may still be.

David C. Frydenlund, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of Energy Fuels was Vice President of the (Swedish) Lundin Group of international public mining and oil and gas companies, from 1996 to 1997. Adolph Lundin, now dead (2006), of the Lundin group was accused of serious human rights violations. See for instance: https://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/25.htm Lundin Gold was founded by a son, Lukas, who also founded Newmarket Gold. Another board member, Ronald F. Hochstein, is CEO of Lundin Gold. The Lundin family is apparently still a major owner of Energy Fuels. Energy Fuels bought out Daneros, in exchange for stock, meaning that they effectively merged. There is-was also a shared board member with Plateau Uranium, formerly Macusani Yellowcake.

The Company has three major customers to which its sales for the year were as follows: 2016 – $33.36 million; $8.69 million; $7.00 million; (2015 (four major customers) – $20.98 million; $16.31 million; $12.53 million; $9.00 million); (2014 (three major customers) – $20.66 million; $8.57 million; $16.53 million).
The Company’s revenues by country of customer for the current year were as follows: 2016 – $50.76 million – U.S.; Other – $3.69 million; (2015 – $37.85 million – U.S.; $20.98 million- South Korea; Other – $1.87 million) (2014 -$25.59 million – U.S.; $20.66 million – South Korea). Deferred revenue at December 31, 2016 of $2.34 million (2015 – $2.17 million) relates to proceeds received on delivery of alternate feed materials in advance of the required processing activity
.” https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1385849/000138584917000006/efr-20161231x10k.htm

the White Mesa mill would be allowed to accept radioactive material from a decommissioned uranium enrichment plant called Sequoyah Fuels in Gore, Oklahoma.” ( See: “After operating with an expired license for a decade, White Mesa uranium mill may get new permits” – The Salt Lake Tribune Jun 8, 2017: “If granted, the White Mesa mill would be allowed to accept radioactive material from a decommissioned uranium enrichment plant called Sequoyah Fuels in Gore, Oklahoma..

See too: “What to do with radioactive waste in rural Oklahoma town? A court fight is on Cherokees, state want contaminated sludge from nuclear site near Gore removed” By Michael Overall, Feb 10, 2017, Tulsa World.

Excerpt from Sequoyah Fuels-General Atomics letter to Cherokee re White Mesa Mill


https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1522/ML15225A452.pdf

WHITE MESA MILL LICENSE RENEWAL INFORMATION:
https://www.uraniumwatch.org/whitemesamill.licenserenewal.htm
https://www.uraniumwatch.org/whitemesamill.licenserenewal/UW_WMM_UT1900479_LicenseAmendment-SequoyahFuelsMaterial_Comments_170731.pdf

For years Energy Fuel’s largest customer was in South Korea, apparently state-owned KEPCO, which acquired 36% of the uranium in 2015. As of 2016 they do not admit such large direct exports to South Korea. However, the export may occur after conversion, enrichment or as fuel rods. Since KEPCO is building, and apparently to operate, a nuclear power station for the United Arab Emirates, eventually the uranium could end up in that reactor, and even in UAE nuclear weapons. The uranium which is reported as being sold in the US won’t necessarily stay there, either. https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2016/07/30/canadian-miner-energy-fuels-destroying-us-public-land-to-send-uranium-to-s-korea-not-even-royalties-for-bankrupt-us-govt-aug-1st-aug-30th-comment-deadlines/. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_Hydro_%26_Nuclear_Power

Lawsuit (complaint) excerpts continue:
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS GIVING RISE TO THE CLAIMS

23. White Mesa Mill processes conventional uranium ore that is mined on the Colorado Plateau. Currently, the White Mesa Mill is the only conventional uranium mill operating in the United States. Most of the licensed uranium mills in the United States were closed in the early 1980s and decommissioned under provisions of Title I of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act amendments to the Atomic Energy Act. The White Mesa Mill is located in San Juan County, Utah, near the White Mesa community populated by members of the Ute Mountain Ute tribe and two of the larger cities in southeastern Utah, Blanding and Bluff.

24. Construction of the White Mesa Mill began in 1979, and operations commenced in May 1980. Between 1980 and 2008, White Mesa Mill operated at various levels of capacity, but processed 4.5 million tons of uranium ore. Since at least April 2008, the Mill has been fully operational. Since at least April 2008, the Mill has operated periodically, with significant idle periods. Energy Fuels plans to place the White Mesa Mill on standby in the second half of fiscal year of 2014 by discontinuing processing while continuing to receive and stockpile uranium ore
Case 2:14-cv-00243-CW-BCW Document 2 Filed 04/02/14 Page 10 of 17

and alternate feed. Energy Fuels plans to continue operations on a campaign basis, which means intermittent periods of active milling as well as periods of stockpiling feedstock with no active milling During standby, the tailings continue to emit Radon-222.

25. Ownership of White Mesa Mill has changed over time. The Mill was built by a company known as Energy Fuels Nuclear. In 1984, Energy Fuels Nuclear sold the White Mesa Mill to Umetco Minerals, an affiliate of Union Carbide. Umetco operated White Mesa Mill until 1994, when it was sold back to Energy Fuels Nuclear. Shortly thereafter, Energy Fuels Nuclear went bankrupt and ceased operating White Mesa Mill in 1995. In 1997, the Mill was purchased by International Uranium Corporation. In 2006, International Uranium Corporation changed its name to Denison Mines as a result of a corporate merger. In 2012, Energy Fuels acquired Denison Mines’ U.S. assets, including White Mesa Mill.

26. Beginning in 1987, White Mesa Mill began accepting “alternate feed” for processing, supplementing the amount of uranium ore being milled. Whereas a conventional mill operator typically pays for uranium ore feedstock, a mill owner is paid to accept and dispose of uranium-bearing “alternate feeds.” Alternate feed is another name for radioactive wastes that contain small amounts of uranium-bearing materials. By processing these radioactive wastes as alternate feed, White Mesa Mill provides hazardous waste sites across the country a means to dispose these wastes without being subject to various federal and state laws (such as, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)), and without having to undertake removal and remediation actions. The Environmental Protection Agency has recognized that this practice has potential for abuse where lower disposal fees at economically marginal uranium mills can result in “sham processing” to convert CERCLA wastes into non-CERCLA mill tailings. Utah regulators have expressed concern that less
Case 2:14-cv-00243-CW-BCW Document 2 Filed 04/02/14 Page 11 of 17
stringent, cheaper, non-CERCLA disposal of radioactive wastes at uranium mills pose problems, particularly where the technical and economic viability of uranium recovery is doubtful.

27. In 1995, EPA delegated authority to the State of Utah to regulate uranium mills’ emissions of radon and implement 40 C.F.R § 61.250 et seq. On March 2, 2011, the State of Utah issued Denison a modified “minor source” air quality permit for White Mesa Mill. The Mill does not require a Title V operating permit. The Mill’s permit incorporates the regulatory requirements set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 61.250 et seq.

28. Energy Fuels possesses two other permits issued by agencies with the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (“DEQ”) pursuant to Utah statutes and regulations – a Groundwater Discharge Permit (“GWDP”) and a Radioactive Materials License. Neither permit governs radon emissions from the Mill’s tailings impoundments. Neither permit exempts Energy Fuels from compliance with federal law. During 2011, 2012, and 2013, the White Mesa Mill reported consecutive exceedances of groundwater compliance limits under the White Mesa Mill’s GWDP for several constituents in several wells. Instead of issuing fines or requiring compliance, Utah DEQ has agreed to change the groundwater standards. Utah DEQ is aware of repeated and ongoing Subpart W violations, but has not taken action to enforce the standards.

Neither Utah DEQ nor the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have levied civil penalties to deter future violations of Subpart W.

29. There are six tailings impoundments at White Mesa Mill, which Energy Fuels refers to as Cell 1, Cell 2, Cell 3, Cell 4A, Cell 4B and Roberts Pond. Energy Fuels operates each of these tailings impoundments on a “phased disposal” basis. Construction of Cell 1 was completed in June 1981. Construction of Cell 2 was completed in May 1980. Construction of Cell 3 was completed in September 1982. Cells 4A and Cell 4B were constructed after 1989. Case 2:14-cv-00243-CW-BCW Document 2 Filed 04/02/14 Page 12 of 17

4A was constructed in 2008. Cell 4B was constructed in 2011. Cell 4 was divided into 4A and 4B to avoid the regulatory restriction on the size of a tailings impoundment. Cell 4A exceeds the 40-acre limit on the size of a tailings impoundment. Cell 4B exceeds the 40-acre limit on the size of a tailings impoundment. Cell 1 receives uranium byproduct materials. Cell 2 receives uranium byproduct materials. Cell 3 receives uranium byproduct materials. Cell 4A receives uranium byproduct materials. Cell 4B receives uranium byproduct materials. Roberts Pond receives uranium byproduct materials.

30. Energy Fuels measures Radon-222 emissions from Cell 2 and Cell 3 based on Method 115. Energy Fuels employs Large Area Activated Charcoal Cannisters, which are passive gas absorption sampling devises that determine the flux rate of Radon-222 gas from the surface of tailings impoundments.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of the Clean Air Act and implementing regulations, Radon-222 Emission Limit, 40 C.F.R. § 61.252(a))

31. Each and every allegation set forth in this Complaint is incorporated herein by reference.

32. Radon-222 emissions from a uranium mill’s tailings impoundment “shall not exceed 20 pCi/m2-sec.” 40 C.F.R. § 61.252(a). Compliance with this emission limit is determined annually. Id. § 61.253.

33. Since 1992, Energy Fuels has been measuring and monitoring Radon-222 emissions from Cell 2 once-a-year, every June. Method 115 permits once-a-year monitoring.

34. In 2012, Energy Fuels’ operations at White Mesa Mill violated the Radon-222 emission limit. Energy Fuels’ June 2012 monitoring revealed violations of the 20 pCi/m2-sec emissions limit. Energy Fuels reported that Radon-222 emissions from Cell 2 in June 2012 were Case 2:14-cv-00243-CW-BCW Document 2 Filed 04/02/14 Page 13 of 17

23.10 pCi/m2-sec. Based on this report, Energy Fuels violated the emissions limit in 2012.

35. This 2012 violation was reaffirmed by additional monitoring. After the June 2012 violation, Energy Fuels increased the frequency of Radon-222 measurements at Cell 2. When the monitoring frequency is more than once-per-year, each monitoring event is averaged over the course of the year. Energy Fuels monitored emissions from Cell 2 in September, October and November of 2012, in addition to June 2012. Emissions from Cell 2 in September 2012 were 26.60 pCi/m2-sec. Emissions from Cell 2 in October 2012 were 27.70 pCi/m2-sec. Emissions from Cell 2 in November 2012 were 26.10 pCi/m2-sec. Energy Fuels calculated the Mill’s 2012 annual emission rate of 25.90 pCi/m2-sec by averaging the readings from the four 2012 monitoring events. In March 2013, Energy Fuels reported that it violated the emissions limit for Radon-222 in 2012 at White Mesa Mill.

36. In 2013, Energy Fuels’ operations at White Mesa Mill violated the Radon-222 emission limit. Monthly monitoring of Radon-222 emissions at Cell 2 began in April 2013 after the 2012 violation was reported in March 2013. Nine monthly reports were filed in 2013. The arithmetic mean of the nine 2013 monitoring events from April to December of 2013 from Cell 2 is 20.42 pCi/m2-sec.

37. At the White Mesa Mill, Energy Fuels has violated and is violating its air permit and the CAA’s emission limit for Radon-222. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 61.252(a), 61.253. Energy Fuels’ violations of the CAA — 42 U.S.C. § 7412(f)(4) and § 7412(i)(3)(A) — are enforceable under the CAA citizen suit provision.
Case 2:14-cv-00243-CW-BCW Document 2 Filed 04/02/14 Page 14 of 17

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of the Clean Air Act and implementing regulations, Number of Tailings Impoundments, 40 C.F.R. § 61.252(b)(1))

38. Each and every allegation set forth in this Complaint is incorporated herein by reference.

39. After December 15, 1989, a uranium mill utilizing phased disposal is prohibited from either constructing or operating more than two tailings impoundments. 40 C.F.R. § 61.252(b)(1). This work practice standard is an emission standard, limitation, or regulation under the CAA.

40. At White Mesa Mill, Cell 4A was constructed in 2008 and Cell 4B was constructed in 2011. At the time these two tailings impoundments were constructed, White Mesa Mill had more than two tailings impoundments in operation. Cell 4A and 4B were constructed while Cell 1 was operating. Cell 4A and 4B were constructed while Cell 2 was operating. Cell 4A and 4B were constructed while Cell 3 was operating. Cell 4A and 4B were constructed while Roberts Pond was operating. Cell 4B was constructed while Cell 4A was operating.

41. Cell 4A and 4B are operating tailings impoundments. There continue to be more than two tailings impoundments in operation at White Mesa Mill. Cell 1 is in operation at White Mesa Mill. Cell 2 is in operation at White Mesa Mill. Cell 3 is in operation at White Mesa Mill. Cell 4A is in operation at White Mesa Mill. Cell 4B is in operation at White Mesa Mill. Roberts Pond is in operation at White Mesa Mill. Initial closure and reclamation measures, such as dewatering the tailings and placing interim radon barriers, have begun at Cell 2. No other cells are undergoing reclamation or interim closure. No tailings impoundment at White Mesa Mill has begun final closure. No tailings impoundment at White Mesa Mill has been covered in a manner shown to effectively control radon for at least two hundred years. Energy Fuels has not placed a Case 2:14-cv-00243-CW-BCW Document 2 Filed 04/02/14 Page 15 of 17

final radon barrier on Cell 1, Cell 2, Cell 3, Cell 4A, Cell 4B, or Roberts Pond. The State of Utah Division of Radiation Control has not incorporated a written tailings closure plan for any cell or Roberts Pond into the Radioactive Materials License for the White Mesa Mill. Subpart T of the CAA regulations governing hazardous air pollutants does not apply to any tailings impoundment at the White Mesa Mill.

42. By exceeding the regulatory limit on the number of tailings impoundment, Energy Fuels has violated and continues to violate the CAA’s work practice standard. See 40 C.F.R. § 61.252(b)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 7412(f)(4) and § 7412(i)(3)(A). Energy Fuels’ violations of the CAA – – 42 U.S.C. § 7412(f)(4) and § 7412(i)(3)(A) — are enforceable under the CAA citizen suit provision.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter judgment against Defendant and provide the following relief:

1. Declare that Energy Fuels has violated and is violating the Clean Air Act and issue such orders as are necessary to enforce the Clean Air Act emissions standards and limits;

2. Enjoin, through an injunction, Energy Fuels from conducting operations at White Mesa Mill until it complies with the Clean Air Act;

3. Enjoin, through an injunction, Energy Fuels from emitting Radon-222 in violation of the CAA standard;

4. Order, through an injunction, Energy Fuels to comply with the Clean Air Act’s work practice standards applicable to uranium mills;

5. Order, through an injunction, Energy Fuels to take actions that remediate the adverse effects to public health and the environment from its Clean Air Act violations; Case 2:14-cv-00243-CW-BCW Document 2 Filed 04/02/14 Page 16 of 17
Emphasis our own. Read the entire case and its status here: https://www.unitedstatescourts.org/federal/utd/92513/ Or, alternatively at plainsite.org
White Mesa Exposure Pathways EPA -USGS
The Navajo Aquifer is under the Morrison formation, as explained in the documentary below.

Learn more by watching this excellent 12 minute documentary.

Half Life: America's Last Uranium Mill from Grand Canyon Trust on Vimeo.

And, by reading here:
http://www.grandcanyontrust.org/white-mesa-uranium-mill
https://www.grandcanyontrust.org/white-mesa-uranium-mill-fact-sheet
http://www.wise-uranium.org/umopwm.html
https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2016/08/30/energy-fuels-white-mesa-uranium-mill-radon-emissions-violate-clean-air-act-alternative-feed-sham-processing-of-radioactive-waste/
https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2017/01/02/bear-ears-monument-partial-win-is-canadian-energy-fuels-uranium-mine-included-or-excluded/
https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2016/08/30/energy-fuels-white-mesa-uranium-mill-radon-emissions-violate-clean-air-act-alternative-feed-sham-processing-of-radioactive-waste/
https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2016/08/27/grand-canyon-permits-for-energy-fuels-uranium-mines-must-be-rejected-by-arizona-aug-29-30-hearings-and-comment-deadline/
https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2016/08/25/us-border-patrol-spots-energyfuels-uranium-mine-fire-in-texas-60-acres-burned-local-fire-department-forced-to-battle-fire/
https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2016/08/01/daneros-uranium-mine-blm-energy-fuels-decreased-clean-up-standard-manipulation-of-data-comment-deadline-today/
https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2016/08/01/canadian-uranium-miner-energy-fuels-endangers-proposed-bear-ears-national-monument-blm-comment-deadline-aug-1-today-write-president-obama/
https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2017/06/11/why-special-interests-want-bear-ears-national-monument-gone-uranium-oil-and-gas/

About new board members of Energy Fuels, according to their SEC submission:
On May 17, 2017, the Board of Directors of the Company appointed Robert W. Kirkwood and Benjamin Eshleman III to the Board of Directors of the Company.

Mr. Kirkwood is a principal of the Kirkwood Companies, including Kirkwood Oil and Gas LLC, Wesco Operating, Inc., and United Nuclear LLC (“United Nuclear”). United Nuclear, owns a 19% interest in the Company’s Arkose Mining Venture while the Company owns the remaining 81%. The Company acts as manager of the Arkose Mining Venture and has management and control over operations carried out by the Arkose Mining Venture. The Arkose Mining Venture is a contractual joint venture governed by a venture agreement dated as of January 15, 2008 entered into by Uranerz Energy Corporation (a subsidiary of the Company) and United Nuclear (the “Venture Agreement”).

United Nuclear contributed $0.37 million to the expenses of the Arkose Joint Venture based on the approved budget for the nine months ended September 30, 2017.

Mr. Benjamin Eshleman III is President of Mesteña LLC, which became a shareholder of the Company through the Company’s acquisition of Mesteña Uranium, L.L.C (now Alta Mesa LLC) in June 2016 through the issuance of 4,551,284 common shares of the Company to the direction of the Sellers (of which 4,303,032 common shares of the Company are currently held by the Sellers). In connection with the Purchase Agreement, one of the Acquired Companies, Leoncito Project, L.L.C. entered into an Amended and Restated Uranium Testing Permit and Lease Option Agreement with Mesteña Unproven, Ltd., Jones Ranch Minerals Unproven, Ltd and Mesteña Proven, Ltd. (collectively the “Grantors”), which requires Leoncito Project, L.L.C., to make a payment in the amount of $0.60 million to the Grantors in June 2019 (of which up to 50% may be paid in common shares of the Company at the Company’s election). At September 30, 2017, the Company has accrued $0.25 million of this liability on the balance sheet. The Grantors are managed by Mesteña LLC.

Pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, the Alta Mesa Properties held by the Acquired Companies are subject to a royalty of 3.125% of the value of the recovered U3O8 from the Alta Mesa Properties sold at a price of $65.00 per pound or less, 6.25% of the value of the recovered U3O8 from the Alta Mesa Properties sold at a price greater than $65.00 per pound and up to and including $95.00 per pound, and 7.5% of the value of the recovered U3O8 from the Alta Mesa Properties sold at a price greater than $95.00 per pound. The royalties are held by the Sellers, and Mr. Eshleman and his extended family hold all of the ownership interests in the Sellers. In addition, Mr. Eshleman and certain members of his extended family are parties to surface use agreements that entitle them to surface use payments from the Acquired Companies in certain circumstances. The Alta Mesa Properties are currently being maintained on care and maintenance to enable the Company to restart operations as market conditions warrant. Due to the price of U3O8, the Company did not pay any royalty payments or surface use payments to the Sellers or to Mr. Eshleman or his immediate family members in the nine months ended September 30, 2017 and does not anticipate paying any royalty payments or surface use payments to the Sellers or to Mr. Eshleman or his immediate family members during the remainder of 2017. Pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, surface use payments from June 2016 through December 31, 2018 have been deferred until June 30, 2019 at which time the Company will pay $1.35 million to settle this obligation. As of September 30, 2017, the Company has accrued $0.68 million of this liability on the balance sheet.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1385849/000138584917000046/efr-20170930x10q.htm

On a related note: Former Obama Treasury Appointee, Tim Geithner, gave away a lot of America’s uranium mines to Russia (Uranium One). No, it wasn’t Hillary – Geithner at Treasury was the lead. Dept. of State was one of many who signed off. Treasury is the lead agency. Geithner used to work for Kissinger Associates too and Kissinger is reportedly buddies with Putin and Trump. Ultimately, however, only Obama could have stopped the Uranium One sale to Russia, but he was dependent upon Geithner’s recommendation.

EMPHASIS OUR OWN THROUGHOUT.