DRC-2012-001093 - 0901a068802a9da5

State of Utah
GARY R HERBERT
Governor
GREG BELL
Lieutenant Governor
February? 2012
CERTIFIED MAIL
(Return Receipt Requested)
David Frydenlund
Vice President and General Counsel
Denison Mines (USA) Corp (DUSA)
1050 Seventeenth St Suite 950
Denver Colorado 80265
Departmenfof
Environmental Quality
Amanda Smith
Executive Director
(
DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
Rusty Lundberg
Director
^ m ru
I
IT
r-
i •
I a
o
!
in
1
! O
U.S. Postal ServiceiM
CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT
(Dmmestic Mail Only; Nm insurance Cmverage Frmvitled)
FT delivery infTmati«n visit aur website at www.us|is.c«m»
Postag
C rtfedFee
r RE Review findings NOED RFI/TR
David C Frydenlmnd
Vice President & General Counsel
6-
Denison Mines (USA) Corp (DUSA)
1050 17th ST'STE 950 ^
Denver CO 80265
FS F»rm 3i«(. Au?|ust 2Me
I 1
Subject' 1" Quarter 2011 2"" Quarter and 3"* Quarter 2011 Groundwater Monitoring Reports
Review Findings/Advisones, Notice of Enforcement Discretion and Request for
/ Information ' , ! I ,
See Reverse f»r Instructions
DRC
Dear Mr Frydenlund ^
I
The Division of Radiation Control (DRC) has completed review of the 2"^* and
Groundwater Monitoring Reports for the White Mesa Uranium Mill listed below
SJ''Quarter 2011
Denison Mines (USA) Corp May 27 2011 7 ' Quarter 2011 Groundwater Monitormg Report
Groundwater Discharge Permit UGW370004 White Mesa Uranium Mill- ^
Denison Mines (USA) Corp August 31 2011 2 Quarter 2011 Groundwater Monitonng Report
Groundwater Discharge Permit UGW370004 White Mesa Uranium Mill
Demson Mines (USA) Corp November 30 2011 3'^ Quarter 2011 Groundwater Monitoring Report
Groundwater Discharge Permit UGW370004 White Mesa Uranium Mill
The review findings were generated with consideration to recent communication {between the DRC and
DUSA regarding the DUSA investigation of multiple monitonng well parameters in out of compliance
(OOC) status These studies are outlined in several DUSA Plan and Time Scheidule documents The
most recent related document submitted was the January 20 201 IPlan and Time Schedule which
IS currently under DRC review DUSA and the Executive Secretary will enter into, a Stipulated Consent
Agreement specifying corrective actions for the OOC parameters once the studies and objectives have
been agreed upon
The! Executive
Notice of Enforcement Discretion (NOED)
Based on the DRC review two violations of the Groundwater Permit were noted
Secretary has deemed enforcement discretion appropriate for both violations as sunimarized below
' 195 North 1950 West Salt Lake City UT
Maihng Address PO Box 144850 SaltLakeCity UT 84114 4850
Telephone [phone] Fax [phone] TDD [phone]
w d q t hg \^
Pr t d 100% ecycl dpape
David Frydenlund
Page 2
NOED #1
Based on DRC review of the Accelerated Monthly Status Reports relevant to the review penod the
following violation was noted
Ground Water Concentration Limits (GWCL s) were set for Monitonng Well MW 35 m the February 15
2011 Permit Modification The GWCL s were included in the Permit and are enforceable (It is noted that
the current GWCL s at well MW 35 were calculated by multiplying the Ground Water Quality Standard
(hereafter GWQS) by a factor of 0 25 as allowed by UAC R317 6-4 5(B)(2) and are intenm pending
submission of background statistics and revision/approval of the GWCL s)
DRC noted that the GWCL s for the following Parameters were exceeded at well MW 35 dunng the
reviewed quarters of data
1 .._.T...-..j._^^«7r.T „ ,st 2"^ 3^ Qtr s 2011
GWQS GWCL
Contaminant (Class II) (Class II) 1st Qtr
2011
2nd Qtr 2011 3rd Qtr 2011
Sample Date 2/15/2011 4/12/2011 8/2/2011
Manganese 800 200 248 580 267 R<*^
Thallium 2 05 <0 50 <0 50 0 52 R">
Uranium 30 75 12 7 19 9 18 3 R^"
Gross Alpha 15 3 75 2 6(-H/ 0 2) 4 4(+/ 0 5) 4 5(+/ 0 5)
Field pH (S U ) 65 85 7 17 6 60 6 24
(1) Resampled 8/30/2011
Since MW 35 is required to be monitored quarterly accelerated monthly monitoring should have been
implemented within 30 days of receipt of the data results per Part IG 1 of the Groundwater Permit
Based on dates of lab packet receipt the affected parameters should have been accelerated as follows
Parameter/ Quarter of
First GWCL
Exceedence
Date of Lab
Report
Monthly Accelerated
Monitoring Required
Startmg
Date Accelerated
Monitoring
Implemented
# of Monthly
Violations
(Days)
Manganese/ T' Qtr 3/24/2011 4/2011 7/2011 3 (90 days)
Thallium/ 3" Qtr 10/4/2011 11/2011 NA
Uranium/1' Qtr 3/24/2011 4/2011 7/2011 3 (90 days)
Adjusted Gross Alpha/
3'*^ Qtr
9/19/2011 10/2011 NA
Field pH/ 3" Qtr Field Sheet Date
8/2/2011
9/2011 Implemented
7/2011 with Mn U
Acceleration
NA
Based on these findings and timelines DUSA violated Groundwater Permit No UGW370004 Part IGI
Failure to implement accelerated monthly monitonng at well MW 35 for Manganese and Uranium
David Frydenlund
Page 3
NOED Justification
Per the DUSA 2"^^ Quarter 2011 Ground Water Monitonng Report Section 2 1 2 Accelerated
Groundwater Monitoring DUSA did identify the exceedences dunng the 1^' Quarter 2011 According
to DUSA It should be noted that during Ql MW 35 was sampled on February 14 2011 prior to
Denison s receipt on February 18 2011 of the revised GWDP containing GWCL s dated February 15
2011 At the time of the Ql sampling the current GWCL s were not applicable to MW 35 Therefore
sampling results from MW 35 were not addressed in the Ql Exceedence Notice dated May 13 2011
because the GWCL sfor this well were not in effect at the time of sampling
Enforcement discretion is granted based on
1 DUSA s identified and discussed their interpretation of the GWCL exceedences and
2 DRC recognizes that there was confusion regarding whether the GWCL exceedences were m
force due to GWCL s being incorporated into the Permit during the same quarter
Note Per the DUSA field sheets well MW 35 was purged on 2/14/2011 to dryness and sampled on
2/15/2011 not 2/14/2011 as stated by DUSA in the quote above
NOED #2
The Permit Part IF 1 g requires DUSA to submit Time Concentration Plots for each monitonng well for
chloride fluoride sulfate and uranium
The Uranium Time Concentration Plot for monitonng well MW 5 included m the 3 Quarter 2011 is
incorrect (does not match the 2011 reported laboratory results)
Failure to provide a current updated Time Concentration Plot for Uranium at monitoring well MW 5 is a
violation of Part IF 1 g of the Permit
NOED Justification
Enforcement discretion is granted based on
1 Uranium monitoring at well MW 5 was accelerated from Semi Annually to Quarterly starting in
the r' Quarter 2011 (Initial exceedence was dunng thel'' Quarter 2010) Additionally well MW
5 was included in the DUSA June 13 2011 Plan and Time Schedule under Utah Groundwater
Discharge Permit UGW370004 Part IG 4(d) white Mesa Mill Specifically well MW 5 is
included in a category with wells which have continued rising trend and will be evaluated to
ensure that the continued trend is consistent with previous analysis Thus the nsing trend has
been documented in other reports and evaluation has been initiated
2 This IS the first noted violation regarding the Groundwater Time Concentration Plots Future
violations will be subject to formal enforcement
David Frydenlund
Page 4
Request for Information (RFI)
RFI#1
DRC has concems regarding purge technique when wells were evacuated to dryness (low yield wells)
and only one set of field parameters was taken dunng the initial purge In these cases there were no
verifications that the field parameters were stable prior to or dunng sampling Additionally DRC noted
that well MW 20 was purged then allowed to recharge for 5 days prior to sampling These wells are
summanzed on the table below
WeU No Samphng Qtr Issue
MW 35 r'Qtr Well purged dry but only one set of field parameters taken during
purging
MW 20 2 'Qtr Well purged on 4/6/2011 field parameters taken on day of purge
Sample not collected until 4/11/2011 (5 days later)
MW 3A 3'Qtr Purged dry only one set of field parameters taken dunng purging
MW 12 3'Qtr Purged dry only one set of field parameters taken dunng purging
MW 24 3'Qtr Purged dry only one set of field parameters taken dunng purging
MW 37 3'Qtr Bailed dry only one set of field parameters taken from bucket*^
In cases where the well is purged dry due to low yield the DUSA Quality Assurance Plan (QAP)
6 2 7(d)vii requires that the well be evacuated to dryness and that the number of gallons purged by
recorded on the field sheet DUSA is then required to measure and record depth to groundwater on the
field sheet DRC verified that in cases where the monitonng well was evacuated to dryness the number
of gallons evacuated was recorded for the 1" 2 ' and 3 ' Quarter 2011 reports Also DRC verified that
depth to groundwater was measured and recorded (comments field) on the field sheet Therefore DUSA
has complied with the cunent QAP requirements however these activities are not consistent with low
yield sampling procedures m the United States Environmental Protection Agency September 1986
RCRA Ground Water Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance Document (TEGD) as follows
According to the TEGD Part 4 2 3 Well Evacuation m the case when evacuating low yield wells
(wells that are incapable of yielding three casing volumes) the owner/operator should evacuate wells to
dryness once As soon as the well recovers sufficiently the first sample should be tested for pH
temperature and specific conductance Samples should then be collected and containerized in the order
ofthe parameters volatilization sensitivity The well should be retested for pH temperature and specific
conductance after samplmg as a measure of purging efficiency and as a check on the stability ofthe
water samples over time
Please update and submit a revised White Mesa QAP to include procedures for field sampling low yield
wells consistent with the TEGD procedures to DRC within 45 calendar days of receipt of this letter
Please base the revised QAP on the currently approved QAP (Rev 6) Specifically the QAP needs to
clarify that in the case where a monitonng well has been determined to be low yield and is evacuated to
dryness
a DUSA will collect the cunently required field parameters (pH specific conductance and
temperature) as soon as the well recovers sufficiently for sample collection (cunently defined as
recovery to within at least 90% of the measured groundwater static surface before sampling)
prior to collection of the sample volumes and
David Frydenlund
Page 5
b DUSA will then collect field parameters directly after sample collection to ensure that the
parameters show stabilization (according to the cntena currently outlined m the QAP Part 6 2 6)
RFI #2
DRC notes that for the T' 2 ' and 3' Quarter 2011 monitonng Tetrahydrofuran (THF) at well MW 11
has been completed monthly (9 monthly samples) and that the laboratory results for all months was
reported below the reporting limit (<1 0 |ig/L) well below the GWCL for THF (115 /ug/L)
Per a previous DRC review memo dated 2010 February 8 2011 pp 3 and 4 which summarizes review
findings ofthe 2"*^ & 3'' Quarter 2010 DUSA Groundwater Monitonng Reports
In a letter dated January 12 2011 DUSA submitted a request that accelerated monitoring for THF in
well MW 11 be retumed to quarterly monitoring rather than the accelerated monthly monitoring due ta
THF concentrations in well MW 11 being below 11 5 (ig/L in nine consecutive samphng events since the
initial exceedance of 12 iig/L in the 1' Quarter 2010 The DRC denied this request for the following
reasons 1) Due to the history of THF in groundwater at the White Mesa Uranium Mill 2) Presence of
THF recently identified in tailings wastewater 3) Historic DUSA claims on a THF source is now suspect
and 4) Groundwater hydraulic considerations at well MW 11 The DRC documented these reasons in a
January 25 2011 Request for Information (RFI) letter In the January 25 2011 RFI the DRC stated
Although DUSA has previously claimed that THF is not used in its mill operations concentrations of
THF were detected above the Utah GWQS (46 tig/L) in the Tailing Cell 4A LDS in two consecutive
samples Since Tailings Cell 4A is the current tailing cell being used by DUSA it appears that the mill is
currently using THF in its operations
It appears that DUSA has not responded to the DRC January 25 2011 RFI The RFI was for DUSA to
provide additional information as to why the THF concentrations observed in the on-site wastewater
impoundments are not caused by the milling process and justify why the sampling frequency for THF
should be reduced in well MW 11 given the new information
Please provide a response to the January 25 2011 DRC RFI withm 45 calendar days of receipt of this
letter
RFI #3
DRC conducted a review of the blind duplicate samples collected dunng each of the monitonng quarters
Per the facility QAP one blind duplicate must be collected with each sample batch DRC confirmed that
one blind duplicate was collected for each batch
The duplicates must be within 20% Relative Percent Difference (RPD) per the QAP Part 9 1 4 if any of
the samples do not meet this companson cntena then DUSA must conform to the procedures for
corrective action listed in the current QAP (Per the current language in Part 10 1 a of the QAP) these
include
a Identify and define the problem
b Assign responsibility for investigating the problem
c Investigate and determine the cause of the problem
d Determine a corrective action to eliminate the problem
e Assign and accept responsibility for correcting the problem
f Implement the corrective action and evaluate its effecUveness
David Frydenlund
Page 6
g Verify that the corrective action has eliminated the problem
The results of the 3 quarter of 2011 (MW 26/MW 65 8/30/2011) blind duplicates for Uranium did not
meet the 20% cntena (RPD value was 38 98%) DRC notes that the nonconformance was idenUfied by
DUSA in Section 3 4 7 of the 3' Quarter Monitonng Report as well as on Table G7 A in Appendix G of
the report However no corrective action was taken regarding the non-conformance as required by
Section 10 1 & 10 2 ofthe QAP
Histoncally DRC has not considered an occasional deviation from the 20% RPD cntena an issue and
has not required the full conective action as specified by the QAP It is recognized that the standard
corrective actions are not applicable to the blind duplicate analysis since it is an independent test ofthe
laboratory precision However DRC does see a need for the QAP to be updated to specify corrective
actions when the 20% RPD cntena is not met DRC recommends the following actions
a DUSA notification of the discrepancy to the laboratory
b DUSA request for venfication from the laboratory that no transcnption errors occuned dunng
analysis and reporting of the affected parameter
c Potential re analysis of the sample for parameters of concem if the sample is still within holding
time
Please provide an updated QAP for the White Mesa Uranium Mill within 45 calendar days of receipt of
this letter including an updated protocol for required correcUve acUon when blind duplicate analysis does
not meet RPD requirements
Advisory
Field Turbidity Readings >5 NTU
As stated in Section 6 2 7(d)(v) of the DUSA QAP turbidity measurement in the water should be<5
NTU prior to sampling unless the well is characterized by water that has a higher turbidity Dunng the
r' 2 ' and 3' Quarter 2011 monitonng events there were 20 wells where DUSA collected
groundwater samples with field reading above the 5 NTU level (see table below)
Table 3 Groundwater Samples Collected with Turbidity Measurement > 5 NTU
Groundwater
Monitoring Event Well Turbidity*^*
1 Qtr 2011 MW 5^'^ 162
1 Qtr 2011 MW 12^'^ 79
1 Qtr 2011 MW 20 ^'^ 75
1 Qtr 2011 MW 32 ^'^ 86
1 Qtr 2011 MW 34 111
2"^ Qtr 2011 MW 1 29 4
2"^ Qtr 2011 MW 5 82
2 " Qtr 2011 MW 12^'^ 87
2 " Qtr 2011 MW 22 68
2 " Qtr 2011 MW 29 98
2 " Qtr 2011 MW 34 256 0
2 " Qtr 2011 MW 25 100
2 " Qtr 2011 MW 25 62
3^ Qtr 2011 MW 5 100
3"* Qtr 2011 MW 11 ''•^ 162
3"* Qtr 2011 MW 23 22 1
3"* Qtr 2011 MW 29 17
David Frydenlund
Page 7
Groundwater
Monitoring Event / Well Turbidity^^ ll :i 3"" Qtr 2011 MW 32 ^'•^ 16 9 H [1
3"* Qtr 2011 ^• Resample/MW 32 ^''^ 80 |i 1
J 3"" Qtr 2011 MW 11 41 1 ]' ffl
1.-1 v
Footnotes / 1
Data for this well was obtained from Tab B of the 1 Quarter 2011 Groundwaterj Monitonng Report
Data for this well was obtained from Tab B of the 2 Quarter 2011 Groundwater Monitonng Report
Data for this well was obtained from Tab C of the 2 ^ Quarter 2011 Groundwater Monitonng Report
\ , ^ - ^ , N • Accelerated Monitonng Field Sheets / i'l'
4 Data for this well was obtained from Tab B of the 3 Quarter 2011 Groundwaterj Monitonng Report
5 Data for this well was obtained from Tab C of the 3 Quarter 2011 Groundwater| Monitonng Report
^ Accelerated Monitonng Field Sheets '[ I j
^ - I'J 1 DUSA undertook a redevelopment project for groundwater,monitonng wells during,^calendar years
2010/2011 in response to a DRC letter dated June 1 2010 ;A redevelopment rejjort^ was prepared and
submitted to DRC on September 30 2011 (Received by DRC on October 3 20l'l) I jThe redevelopment ^ i
f r • •,„
report IS currently under DRC review
If you have questions regarding this letter please contact Tom Rushing at (801) 536,p080 ^
UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD
Rusty Lundberg^ ^ ^ 111
Co Executive ^Secretary
RLTRtr
V
F \DUSA\Groundwater Reports\2011 Groundwater Reports\2011 1st 2nd and 3rd Qtr Review\NOED\DUSA 1st 2nd 3rd 2011 NOED and RFI
Letter docx ft lij
I 1
J
[I I,
1 > :^
it"! !,
1-