DRC-2009-002107 - 0901a0688011a22e

^•l^C--'-yOL^'^^...'^l^ I
DENISOIST^i
MINES
May 22, 2009
Denjson Mines (USA) Corp.
1050 17th Street, Suite 950
Denver, CO 80265
USA
Tel: [phone]
Fax:[phone]
www.cleni3onmines.com
VIA PDF AND FEDERAL EXPRESS
Mr. Dane L. Finerfrock
Co-Executive Secretary
Utah Water Quality Board
State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality
168 North 1950 West
P.O. Box 144850
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850
Dear Mr. Finerfrock:
Re: DUSA 3"* Quarter, 2008 (dated November 28, 2008) and 4*" Quarter, 2008 (February 25, 2009),
Groundwater Monitoring Reports: Notice of Violation and Compliance Order, Docket No. UGWG9-
04
This letter is in response to the foregoing Notice of Violation (the "Notice") dated April 21, 2009, which
Denison Mines (USA) Corp. ("DUSA") received on April 23, 2009. The Notice lists three violations (the
"Violations") of the White Mesa Mill's (the "Mill's") Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit No.
UGW370004 (the "Permit"), based on a review of the Mill's Groundwater Monitoring Reports for the 3"^
and 4'^ Quarters of 2008.
Pursuant to Utah Code Annotated 19-5-111 (1953 as amended), this letter describes:
a) the root cause of the noncompliance;
b) steps that have been or will be taken to correct the violation;
c) date when compliance was or wiii be regained; and
d) steps taken or to be taken to prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance.
DUSA responds as follows:
1. Violation of Part I.F.I of the Permit for failing to report all well monitoring and samples
collected, including a result for TDS in well MW-25 in the 4'" Quarter 2008 Report, for the
November 2008 monitoring event.
a) Root Cause of the Noncompliance
TDS was sampled in well MW-25 on November 10, 2008 during the period of time that the fourth quarter
samples were taken for all POC wells at the site. These samples were sent to the Mill's independent
analytical laboratory for analysis. The laboratory advised Mill staff that, due to inadvertence on the part of
the laboratory, TDS in MW-25 was not analyzed within the 7-day holding time required under Method
A2540C. As a result of this information. Mill staff re-sampled MW-25 for TDS on November 19, 2008.
This second sample was analyzed by the analytical laboratory and the analytical results were reported in
a report dated December 1, 2008 that was sent to Mill staff. The analytical results for the remainder of
the constituents in all wells, absent TDS in MW-25, were reported by the laboratory in a report dated
December 31, 2008, that was sent to Mill staff and to DUSA corporate environmental personnel.
In previous periods, this problem would most likely have been identified too late in the quarter, or after the
end of the quarter, and there would not have been sufficient time to remedy the problem. In this particular
circumstance, however, the original samples were taken early in the quarter, the problem was identified
immediately by the laboratory and the laboratory advised Mill staff immediately. This allowed Mill staff to
resample in enough time to obtain the results and to have the second set of results analyzed all within the
quarter, as required by the Permit. All of this worked according to the revised procedures implemented
by DUSA in response to previous violations.
However, in this particular circumstance, the following factors led to the re-sampled TDS results not being
included in the 4' Quarter 2008 Groundwater Monitoring Report:
(i) The quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Reports are prepared by Denver corporate
environmental personnel;
(ii) Denver corporate environmental personnel were not aware that there had been a holding
time exceedance for TDS in MW-25 and that MW-25 had been re-sampled. This was
due to two factors:
• The analytical laboratory apparently emailed the re-sampled results to Denver
corporate environmental staff as well as to Mill staff, but this communication does
not appear to have been received by Denver staff, due to problems with DUSA's
email system at the time; and
• Mill staff either did not bring this re-sampling to the attention of Denver corporate
environmental staff or did so in a manner that did not result in a proper
communication to such staff, with the result that Denver staff was not made
aware of the re-sampling;
(iii) The analytical results for the re-sample were not included in the analytical report for all of
the other constituents and other wells, even though that report was dated 30 days later
(December 31, 2008) than the analytical report for the re-sampled results for TDS in MW-
25 (December 1,2008);
(iv) Denver corporate environmental staff was not aware of or on the lookout for this problem
when reviewing the December 31, 2008 analytical report, and did not notice that TDS
was not reported for MW-25 in that report;
(v) Denver corporate environmental personnel did not adequately check to verify that all
constituents in all wells had been reported in the December 31, 2009 analytical report;
and
(vi) Denver corporate environmental personnel did not adequately review the Field Data
Worksheets for the 4*^ Quarter 2008 sampling event, which indicated that MW-25 had
been re-sampled. A proper review of those Worksheets would likely have alerted staff
that something unusual had occurred. This would have prompted Denver staff to ask
further questions that would have brought this matter to their attention.
b) Steps That Have Been Taken to Correct the Violation
The following steps have been taken to correct the violation:
(i) Mill staff have been instructed to advise Denver corporate environmental staff in writing,
by email or otherwise, of any re-sampling required at the Mill;
(ii) Denver corporate environmental staff has been advised to contact Mill staff prior to
preparation of quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Reports to determine if there had been
any re-sampling or other unusual sampling or analytical issues during the period;
(iii) Denver corporate environmental staff has been reminded of the need to carefully review
the analytical results to ensure that the results include results for each constituent in all
wells required to be sampled during the reporting period;
(iv) Denver corporate environmental staff has been reminded to review the Field Data
Worksheets carefully to ensure that they contain the required indormation and do not
indicate any problem areas that require further review; and
(v) DUSA is reviewing and revising the checklists it employs when preparing its quarterly
Groundwater Monitoring Reports to ensure that they include the items in (ii), (iii) and (iv)
above as well as all other pertinent matters, including matters identified in the responses
below in connection with the other two violations cited in the Notice.
DENISO
MINES
rfjii
c) Date When Compliance Was or Will be Regained
The steps referred to in items c)(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) above have been completed and will be implemented
commencing with the 2"^* Quarter 2009 Groundwater Monitoring Report. DUSA will complete the review
of its checklists, referred to in item c)(v) above, for implementation in connection with the 3^^ Quarter 2009
Groundwater Monitoring Report.
d) Steps Taken to Prevent Reoccurrence of the Noncompliance
The five steps listed in items c)(i) to c)(v) above are intended to prevent reoccurrence of this
noncompliance.
2. Violation of Parts I.E.I (a) and II. A of the Permit and Sections of 7.2, 9.3(d), and 11 of the DUSA
QAP for failing to provide a chain of custody for the July and September 2008 monitoring
events.
a) Root Cause of the Noncompliance
All of the proper chain of custody forms were provided to the analytical laboratory, and copies of those
forms were included with the laboratory's analytical reports. Denver corporate environmental personnel
inadvertently did not include the subject chain of custody forms with the copy of the analytical report
included in the 3''^ Quarter 2008 Groundwater Monitoring Report filed prior to December 1, 2008.
This omission was brought to DUSA's attention on March 30, 2009, and DUSA provided the chain of
custody forms to Division of Radiation Control staff by email on March 31, 2009. However, the email sent
to Division of Radiation Control Staff on March 31, 2009 was apparently not received, and upon request
on April 8, 2009, the information was resent and receipt was confirmed.
The root cause of this noncompliance is therefore inadvertence on the part of Denver corporate
environmental staff in preparing the 3^"^ Quarter 2008 Groundwater Monitoring Report.
b) Steps That Have Been Taken to Correct the Violation
Denver corporate environmental staff has been reminded of the need to carefully check to ensure that all
required chain of custody forms are included in the quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Reports.
In addition, as mentioned above, DUSA is reviewing and revising the checklists it employs when
preparing its quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Reports to ensure that they include all pertinent matters,
including the requirement to verify that all required chain of custody forms are included in quarterly
Groundwater Monitoring Reports.
c) Date When Compliance Was or Will be Regained
Denver corporate environmental staff has been reminded to verify that the 2"'' Quarter Groundwater
Monitoring Report will contain all required chain of custody forms. Therefore, compliance will be regained
as of the date of that report.
As mentioned above, DUSA will complete its review of the checklists it employs when preparing its
quarterly Groundwater Reports, for implementation in connection with the 3^*^ Quarter 2009 Groundwater
IVIonitoring Report.
d) Steps Taken to Prevent Reoccurrence of the Noncompliance
The steps described in item c) above are intended to prevent reoccurrence of this noncompliance.
DENISO
MINES
r^ii
3. Violation of Part I.E.I (a) of the Permit and Section 11 of the DUSA QAP for creating Water
Table Contour Maps in the 3'" and 4"" Quarter 2008 Reports with elevation data that was not
contemporaneous, i.e. collected with a time difference that was greater than five calendar
days.
a) Root Cause of the Noncompliance
Historically, the Permit required that the Water Table Contour Maps include data for all wells that had
been collected during the relevant quarter. Part I.F.I.c) of the Permit required that each quarterly
Groundwater Monitoring Report include a Water Table Contour Map "which provides the location and
identity of all wells sampled that quarter, the measured groundwater elevation at each well measured in
feet above mean sea level, and isocontour lines to delineate groundwater flow directions observed during
the quarterly sampling event."
The Mill's Ground Water Monitoring Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) had simply required that each
quarterly report include a "water contour map."
Based on these requirements, water level measurements were collected for each well at the time the well
was sampled. For compliance monitoring under the Permit, this sampling was typically performed over
two or more weeks, to ensure that samples were collected during the beginning of the week so that they
could be received at the analytical laboratory prior to the weekend. This manner of sampling and sending
results to the laboratory was developed in order to ensure compliance with the sample temperature
requirements. DUSA found that when samples were received by the laboratory on the weekend, they
were more likely to violate the sample temperature requirements. Because of the number of compliance
wells sampled, it was not possible to perform all of the sampling in the beginning of one week. The
sampling had to be spread out over more than one week.
Chloroform sampling has typically been completed at a different time during each quarter than the
compliance well sampling, and water level results for chloroform wells were collected at the time those
wells were sampled. Similarly, water levels in the piezometers and in MW-20 and MW-22, were typically
collected at yet another time during the quarter.
The Mill had therefore developed practices that resulted in all required samples being taken for
compliance monitoring and chloroform well monitoring during the quarter, and that resulted in the
collection of water level data during the quarter. This water level data, which had been collected at
various times during the quarter, was then used to compile the Water Contour Map for the quarter.
The requirements of Section 11 of the QAP were changed in June, 2008, such that each quarterly report
was required to contain "A Water Table Contour Map showing groundwater elevation data for the quarter
will be contemporaneous for all wells on site, not to exceed a maximum time difference of five calendar
days."
It appears that this change was agreed to by Denver corporate environmental staff and without a full
understanding by such staff and Mill staff that this new requirement would require a change in the manner
in which water level measurements are to be taken by Mill staff. It is not clear that Mill staff was made
aware of or fully understood these new requirements, because Mill personnel did not change their historic
sampling and water level measurement practices after June 2008. Mill staff continued to take water level
measurements at the time of sampling, as it had done in the past, which measurements were not taken
within a five-day period, as required by the revised provisions of the QAP.
The root cause of this noncompliance is therefore a miscommunication between Denver corporate
environmental personnel and Mill staff as to this change to Section 11 of the QAP.
b) Steps That Have Been Taken to Correct the Violation
The following steps have been taken to correct the violation:
(i) Denver corporate environmental personnel have been reminded to make sure that Mill
staff are aware of and provide their input into any changes in the QAP that involve
changes to field practices carried out by IVIill personnel;
DENISO
MINES
^U
(ii) Mill personnel have been reminded to review carefully draft changes to the QAP that are
provided to them by Denver corporate environmental personnel to: (A), make sure they
are in agreement that any such changes are practicable from an implementation
perspective; and (B) make sure that any such changes are implemented in the field; and
(iii) Starting with the 2 Quarter of 2009, Mill personnel will conduct a separate campaign to
take water measurements from all required wells and piezometers independently of
sampling, to ensure that all such water level measurements are obtained within the
required five-day period.
It should be noted that the steps set out in (iii) above will require that additional resources be applied by
the Mill to perform a separate round of water level measurements. DUSA is evaluating the costs involved
in doing this against the appropriateness of setting a five-day window for taking the water level
measurements. In doing this evaluation, DUSA will consider the rates of water flow, the historic variations
in water levels over time and the impacts of certain pumping wells to determine if the five-day window is
appropriate or if a window of a different duration may be appropriate. However, until DUSA completes
such an evaluation and the Executive Secretary agrees to a different measurement window, DUSA will
ensure that water level measurements are taken within a five-day period each quarter for purposes of
compiling the Water Contour Map for the quarter.
c) Date When Compliance Was or Will be Regained
Compliance will be achieved commencing with the water level measurements taken during the 2"'' quarter
of 2009, as reported in the 2"" Quarter 2009 Groundwater Monitoring Report that is required to be filed on
or before September 1, 2009. DUSA notes that these new practices will not have been performed for the
1^' Quarter of 2009, and hence the Water Table Contour Map contained in the Groundwater Monitoring
Report for that quarter will not be in compliance with the requirements of Section 11 of the QAP.
d) Steps Taken to Prevent Reoccurrence of the Noncompliance
Mill staff has been instructed to change its practices to require that water level measurements be taken
independently of water quality samples and within a five day period each quarter.
If you have any questions or require any further information, please contact the undersigned.
Yours very truly.
DENISON MINES (USA) CORP
Davia (^. Frydenlund
Vice President, Regulatory Affairs and Counsel
cc: Ron F. Hochstein
Harold R. Roberts
Steven D. Landau
David E. Turk
DENISOI
MINES