DRC-2011-007379 - 0901a06880270ec5

DENISO
MINES
September 19, 2011
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
105017th Street, Suite 950
Denver, CO 80265
USA
Tel : [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.denisonmines.com
VIA PDF AND FEDERAL EXPRESS
Mr. Rusty Lundberg
Co-Executive Secretary
Utah Water Quality Board
State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality
195 North 1950 West
P.O. Box 144810
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4810
Dear Mr. Lundberg:
Re: DUSA 4^*^ Quarter 2010 (dated February 28, 2011) Groundwater Monitoring Reports - Notice of
Violation and Compliance Order, Docket No. UGWl 1-04
This letter is in response to the foregoing Notice of Violation (the "Notice") dated August 15, 2011, which
Denison Mines (USA) Corp. ("DUSA") received on August 18, 2011. 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 Report for the 4*^
Quarter of 2010.
'4
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 will be regained; and
d) steps taken or to be taken to prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance.
DUSA responds as follows:
1. Parts I.E.I (b)(2) and I.G.I(b)(1) of the Permit for failing to accelerate samples for TDS in wells
MW-26 and MW-31 and Uranium in well MW-25 during December 2010. This is also a continuing
violation previously cited in three DRC NOVs dated January 11, 2008 (UGW07-04), February 28,
2008 (UGW08-01), and April 1, 2008 (UGW08-02).
a) Root Cause of the Noncompliance
The Denison Corporate Quality Assurance Manager noted the exceedances of the Groundwater
Compliance Limits ("GWCLs") for Q3 2010 and appropriately reported the exceedances in the November
15, 2010 Exceedance Notice. The Quality Assurance Manager failed to notify Mill Personnel of the
additional accelerated sampling requirements. The Denison Corporate Quality Assurance Manager noted
this oversight during the 4 quarter 2010 data review, and accelerated monitoring was started in January
2011.
b) Steps That Have Been Taken to Correct the Violation
Denison recently purchased a commercial database system for management of the Mill groundwater
data. After all data are entered and have undergone quality control review, the database/data
management capabilities of the software system will allow the Corporate Quality Assurance Manager to
provide the exceedance results to the Mill Personnel in a more timely fashion. In addition, after
completion of training, data reports will be accessible to the Mill Personnel directly which would allow
them to determine what analytes require accelerated monitoring in addition to the notification from the
Corporate Quality Assurance Manager.
c) Date When Compliance Was or Will be Regained
Monitoring for TDS in MW-26 and MW-31 and uranium in MW-25 was accelerated in January 2011 as
required.
d) Steps Taken to Prevent Reoccurrence of the Noncompliance
See item (b) above.
2. Part I.E.I (a) of the Permit and Section 8.2 and Table 1 of the DUSA QAP for failing to perform
analysis for mercury in 10 wells (MW-1, MW-3, MW-3A, MW-12, MW-18, MW-19, MW-20, MW-23,
MW-26, and MW-34) and one blind duplicate (MW-70) within the recommended holding time (28
days). This is also a continuing violation previously cited in the April 1, 2008 NOV (UGW08-02,
Violation #3).
Denison submitted a notice on January 26, 2011, under Part I.G.3, which asserted an affirmative defense
under I.G.3.(c) of the Permit and UAC R-317-6-6.16C.3 in association with this violation. This Notice of
Violation did not indicate that the Executive Secretary had considered that submittal. A copy of the
January 26, 2011 notice is attached as Appendix B to this letter, for your convenience. Denison believes
that the affirmative defense in Part I.G.3.(c) of the Permit is applicable to this incident and that this
violation should be retracted.
a) Root Cause of the Noncompliance
1. Facts and Background Information
a) Denison performed its routine review of laboratory data from Energy Laboratories ("EL") and
America West Analytical Laboratories for compliance with requirements of the QAP during the
week of January 17, 2011.
b) The currently approved Denison White Mesa Mill QAP, Table 1, requires the use of Method
E200.8 for the analysis of mercury. This table also requires a 28 day holding time for mercury;
that is, that samples be analyzed for mercury within 28 days of the date of sample collection.
c) EL has performed all the metals analyses for the Mill's groundwater program, since prior to
1995. EL performed the mercury analysis for the Mill's fourth quarter 2010 groundwater
samples. EL has consistently been able to meet a 28 day holding time for mercury samples;
that is, they have consistently performed mercury analysis within 28 days of the sample
collection.
d) During the week of January 17, 2011, Denison identified that 10 groundwater samples and one
duplicate sample analyzed by EL for mercury were analyzed after the 28 day holding time had
expired. Denison contacted EL regarding the lab's failure to meet the holding time required in
the QAP.
e) EL is currently Utah State certified for, and uses for Denison's groundwater analyses. Method
200.8 Determination of Trace Elements in Water and Wastes by Inductively Coupled Plasma-
Mass Spectrometry, Revision 5.4 dated 1994. This method, which is required by the QAP, lists
the holding time for mercury as 6 months. This method is the currently promulgated method
per 40 CFR 141 and 143 (September 1998). A proposed update. Draft Revision 5.5, has not
been approved by EPA.
DENISO
MINES
f) Denison collected all the samples for groundwater mercury during the period from November
15 to November 29, 2010. EL received all of Denison's fourth quarter groundwater mercury
samples during the period from November 19, 2010 through November 24, 2010. Due to the
laboratory staff schedules during the holidays, EL did not have enough available staff to
analyze the mercury samples within the 28 day hold time, which expired on December 13, 2010
for the earliest, and December 28, 2010 for the latest of the mercury samples.
g) Denison received the initial data reports containing two of the mercury results on December 30,
2010, too late to perform re-sampling within the fourth quarter. Denison received the remainder
of the needed data reports required for the quality assurance review, after the close of the
fourth quarter, on January 6, 2011.
h) Following Denison's review of the data, during phone conversations and emails with EL, the lab
advised Denison that:
a. there was room for confusion in interpreting the discrepancy between the 6-month hold
time identified in Method 200.8 Revision 5.4 and the 28-day hold time identified in 40
CFR 141 and 143. This is particularly so given footnote 3 in the table in 40 CFR
141.23(k)(2), which states that:
"In all cases, samples should be analyzed as soon after collection as possible.
Follow additional (if any) information on preservation, containers or holding
times that is specified in the method."
This could be interpreted to mean that the more specific, 6-month holding time
requirement in the method should prevail over the holding time specified in the table,
and
b. EL assumed the 6-month hold time in approved Method 200.8 Revision 5.4 was
applicable. Based on EL's interpretation, EL assumed that the 6-month hold time was
applicable and the samples were not out of hold.
i) Denison concluded that regardless of the holding time stated in EL's certified Method, the 28-
day hold time stated in the QAP should be considered correct and should be adhered to for the
following reasons:
a. The Mill's QAP requires a 28-day holding time.
b. The September 1998 publication of 40 CFR 141 and 143 states a 28-day holding time
(notwithstanding footnote 3 referred to above).
c. Industry standards and practice appear to require a 28-day holding time for mercury.
d. In the draft revision 5.5 of Method E200.8, the holding time for mercury has been
changed to 28 days, presumably to be consistent with industry practices and
standards.
The root cause analysis is as follows.
a) There exists a discrepancy between the holding time stated in the approved Method 200.8
Revision 5.4, for which EL is certified, and other statements of holding time for this method, as
appear in the 1998 40 CFR 141 and 143, and the proposed update to Method 200.8.
b) There was some confusion on the part of the lab in determining the applicable holding time.
The lab misinterpreted the discrepancy. Operating under the assumption that the 6-month
holding time was applicable, the lab did not analyze the samples in time or notify Denison in
time to recollect samples to meet a 28-day holding time.
DENISONO^
MINES
b) Steps That Have Been Taken to Correct the Violation
The following actions will have already been taken to prevent a reoccurrence of this incident:
a) As stated above, Denison re-contacted EL by email and informed the lab that:
a. The 28-day mercury hold time in the QAP is applicable and mandatory regardless of
EL's interpretation of a longer hold time as stated in their certified method.
b. El is required for all future samples to meet the 28-day hold time for mercury.
c) Date When Compliance Was or Will be Regained
All mercury analyses conducted since this occurrence in 4*^^ Quarter 2010 have been completed within the
28-day holding time as required.
d) Steps Taken to Prevent Reoccurrence of the Noncompliance
As previously stated, Denison has purchased a commercial database system. The database/data
management software will automatically note any holding time deviations at the time the data are loaded
by the laboratory. This would allow resampling efforts to be conducted immediately. As mentioned above,
Denison believes that the affirmative defense in Permit I.G.3.(c) of the Permit is applicable to this incident
and that this violation should be retracted.
3. Part I.E.I (a) of the Permit and Section 7.1 and Attachment 1 of the DUSA QAP for failing to use
the currently approved Field Data Worksheet for Groundwater for the 4^*^ Quarter (November) and
December, 2010 monitoring events, as found in Attachment 1 of the currently approved DUSA
QAP, Revision 6.0.
a) Root Cause of the Noncompliance
DUSA respectfully submits that Violation Number 3 is in error and should be retracted.
The field data sheet used for the 4*"^ Quarter and December 2010 monitoring events is the same field
sheet contained in the approved QAP, with cosmetic changes only, to facilitate electronic data capture.
Denison began implementing an electronic data capture system in 2010. The system required cleaner,
darker formatting of the printed pages, specific fonts, marked cells for handwritten data, and use of
shaded electronic watermarked paper. Only these improvements were made to the field form. All
content and data contained in the Attachment 1 of the approved QAP have been retained in
approximately the same location on the page. Use of manually filled, handwritten, hand signed hard-copy
sheets in waterproof ink has been retained.
It is also important to note that the approved QAP, Section 7.1 requires the use of a field data sheet, and
notes that "An example of a Field Data Worksheet that incorporates....is included as Attachment 1." The
QAP does not state that the form included in Attachment 1 will be used, but is an example of a form that
incorporates the required information. Based on the wording of the currently approved QAP, any form that
incorporates the required information is allowable. Nonetheless, Denison has continued to use the same
form as provided in Attachment 1 of the QAP, with no data added or removed, or relocated on the pages.
The Field Data Worksheet simply has been cosmetically changed for ease of digital transfer. The
wording in the approved QAP does not preclude the use of a re-formatted Field Data Worksheet provided
the required information is collected.
To assist with confirmation that the data sheets are the same, short of the cosmetic changes, DUSA has
attached copies of both the form included in Attachment 1 of the currently approved QAP ("Attachment 1")
and the re-formatted data sheet. Each data input location on Attachment 1 has been numbered. The
same number has been recorded in the corresponding data input location on the re-formatted field data
sheet. Both sheets with the numbered data input locations are included as Appendix A to this response
letter. It is important to note that all data input locations noted on Attachment 1 (numbers 1 through 60)
are represented on the re-formatted field data sheet; that is, the data collection requirements are
DENISO
MINES
identical. A second set of the same Attachment 1 and reformatted Attachment 1 have also been included
showing each of the pages with numbered content side-by-side.
b) Steps That Have Been Taken to Correct the Violation
The following steps have been taken to correct the violation:
DUSA believes it is already in compliance with the requirements of the QAP for field data collection and
no violation has occurred.
c) Date When Compliance Was or Will be Regained
DUSA believes it is already in compliance with the requirements of the QAP for field data collection and
no violation has occurred.
d) Steps Taken to Prevent Reoccurrence of the Noncompliance
DUSA believes it is already in compliance with the requirements of the QAP for field data collection and
no non-compliance situation has occurred.
If you have any questions or require any further information, please contact the undersigned.
Yours very truly,
DUSA MINES (USA) CORP.
Jo Ann Tischler
Director, Compliance and Permitting
cc: David C. Frydenlund
Ron F. Hoehstein
Loren Morton
Harold R. Roberts
David E. Turk
Katherine Weinel
DENISO
MINES
APPENDIXA
Comparison of Field Data Sheets
DENISO
MINES
Attachnnent 1 of Currently-Approved QAP - Field Data Sheet
Page 1
Attachment 1 - Reformatted Field Data Sheet
Page 1
Mill - OmundwaierDi.schargc Pcnnii
GroiindwatQr Monitoring
Qualii} A.ssurancc Plan (QAP)
Date: 3-22-10 Revision 6
Page 42 of 50
ATTACHMENT I
WHITE MESA URANIUM MILL
HELD DATA WORKSHEET FOR GROUND WATER
Ocscription of Sampling Event: ^ /
Location (well name)_
Date and Time for Purging 1^ V
Siunpler
Nome and initials
_and Sampling (if different') i
Well Purging Equip Used: ._pump or bailer"' Well Pump (if other than Bennet I 7
Sampling Kvent__ Prev. Well Sampled in Sampling Event 1
pH Buffer 7.0 -^j 10 pH Buffer 4.0 ^//
Specific Conductance "^^•^ uMHOS/cm Well Depth tt I2>
Depth IO Water Before Purging ^y,/
AO-Conductance (avg)_
Well Water Temp, (ave) 11
Weather Cond. jljiX..
Ca,<ing Volume. (V) 4 " Well: ji-/S" f.653h^
3" Well: ^lU {:ibTK\
pH of Water (uvg) it-It
Redox Potential (Eh):^^Turbidity ^J)
Bxi'l Amb. Temp.(prior lo .sampling event)_
Time: Gal. Pureed jj JWT
Conductance «?^
pH <^^7
Temperature ^«?/
Time: **3t Gal. Pur|ted -tt 2X.'
Conductance,
pH
Temperature.
Redox Potential (Eh) 1^3^
Turbiditv J^^O
Redox Potential (Eh)_
Turbidity
Time: fe" M Gal. Purpcd W 3f
Conductance.
Tempe rature_
Redox Potential (Eh)_
Turbiditv it- 'f't
Time: f/S" Gal. Purged ti
Conductance tt Hf
pH it Hi
Temperaiure__:£?i
Redox Potential (Eh)
Turbidily ti^ Jri
* Gisundrntcr M<inItof iiig QualltY AaatttKKi Miri (QAPj'.
description of Samplihg Ey unt:
WHITE MESA URANIUM MILL.
riCLD DATA .VVORKSHEET FOR GRb^J^b ^VATER ':
\ " ; AUachmcnt. 1
|J»ca|i6ti'(w^
: DateVand-Time for.
: Sampler Name v.
sind initials;' :
:and Sampling (if-diffei-eht)
Purgiiig Equip Used:{ • Jpump oij El | bailer ,v WcU Puinp (ii'iillun; thaa
: • Sampling .Event-:[ jJ' S
pH Buffer 7.0
, Prey.- Well Sampled iii .Sampling Event
• • • pH •Bufrbr4.p-; :r-:i ';.:\ .//
, SpeciCc CptiduictanceI.:.:. 'Jt./ji^
Pijpth to, WatCfiBe fore
I,; V ;Well pcpthfli.UUV:.
Cas iiig A'olurrie (V) / - 4" Well:
/ • ' ' 3" Well
(:653hjl
pH 6f Water (avg)
V • WcaihcrCbnU-Ext'l Aitib. Tennp. 'C (prior sampllfig:e¥efit)|: #Jgjr-;
^ Tunc. s 1 ^^/t I • Gal 'Purged | ^ Jl^' \
Conducianee:;;- j- ., | .yW V-ifj.l I
iren^p!:"^;:^
..Turbidity (NTU)^'^ -| ^Jj) /^- ]
• I • I Gal Purged (I?7Jg33
:|Xron$ictiincievV;'!^ .'-fyBH-j'^^^^iyy- vv|:
,;Rccibx PoilniiaJ 'i;:r.t^'^V^v.-yJ-vv:;'''' .•'','^
;Tutbidity iN.TLi) ••• . -
Condiiclance *' \ '. 1 pH j 'l^^ 1
Redox PqJciiiinl Eh (tnV)- |.v-j»»jr^ '
Turbidity (NTU)" ' ' [i^.^y.
Time I ' I Gai Pufl!«J ,CZ2£ZI]
.C(3iidijcfMeie^''vr'E^
•fedOT'Pmetitiii'fE:^ (iny:)V|..'^^v
tiirbidjix'itNTIJ)•'
, www Mesa.Mill;- v -• y /f -
: Field OalB Vl^brVihefit.fof 6roundv.i.ftiH-.captuTX
Attachment 1 of Currently-Approved QAP - Field Data Sheet
Page 2
Mill - Groundwater Dischaigc Pennit
Groundwater Moniloring
(Quality Assurance Plan (QAP)
Volume of Water Purged When Field Parameters are Measured.
Pumping Rate Calculation
Date: 3-22-10 Revision 6
Page 43 of 50
Flow Rate (Q), in gpm.
S/60 = = tr £3
Time to evacuiite two casing volumes (2V)
T = 2V/Q = . -^Jy
Number of casing volumes evacuated (if other than two)_
If well evacuated to dryness, number of gallons evacuated ^ S%
Name of Certified Analytical Laboratory if Other Than Energy Labs dfS^
Tvwe of Samplc
Nutrients
Heavy Metals
All Other
RadioloRics
Non-
Gross Alpha
Olher (specify)
Taken
(circle)
Sample Volmne
(indic»te if other
than as specified
b£2S£i.
3x40 ml
100 ml
250 ml
250 ml
1,000 ml
Sample volume
Filtered Preservative Added
(circle)
HCL Y N
H3S04 Y N
HNO, Y N
No Preservative Added
H2SO4 Y N
N
If a preservative is used.
Specify Type and
Quantity of Preservative:
Comments
Attachnnent 1 - Reformatted Field Data Sheet
Page 2
•. Mill - Gr^ndwitef biichirgs Pw»n 4.;. ..•\ ' V •
VGrmhdMratErt^annoHnBQuslityAi^ V. . . ' : ; '
^ .Voliime of Water Purged '[T'^ J^ ^ "1 gallonls)
'I)4t^:03/22/2I)ipitqv.(
" Flow Rate (Q)i:iri Bpm, ': Tibic to cvaiiuate'twb casing .volumes (2V)
T=2v/Q-r~^Jy I. ' :
; Niinibdr of casug'.TO^
If WcU evacuated to; dryness, nii^ gallqas evacuated .
-Name of Geruficd Annlyticat Laboratory if Othet Than Energy Labj 'jj^^^y
'1 • V* .'.Type df Saniple ;.' '1 >s.. -.Sample Takcuv Saniple Vot (indicate
' :if,blhcrlh-jn as . •
:' speci fic'd below)
• vFilicried '' v Prescrir itive V . Preservative ;
. V Added 4^ '1 • V* .'.Type df Saniple ;.' '1 >s..
• •; -Y -• v M
Saniple Vot (indicate
' :if,blhcrlh-jn as . •
:' speci fic'd below) : -<-Y"^-.-:. :v .N
Prescrir itive V
•.•.:-N:...-
vocr-: - :y. •••,v 3x40 ml V:. -';.'"^':': HCL;,.:-;V-'-.--v..:,,;-
Niitriuiiis -'''^s\ 'v,' --V^ ' ••.-v.Qs,.; 'k;i3:a •l{)!t)«nt.r:.:ii:.^v-....,fv' ,;V-V|3iS;
Hcii\V'.Mctals ': --'•'••. ? 250 n»l Vni''..'-HN03 ' .
All Oiliiir Non Raditjlptticsv':- >' 250:m!.vv,v.::..-..v:'^P Nd'Prcscrv.:1'/-%;
Gross Alpha . v'. vf.^ ' Am W)00:mi:fv!:.-'.V^':'^:; HNG3v-,:-':--.:.,':.v-yviQl;,-*
Qthcr:ils|)c:cily)-7-T^ r'"->>$,;v; v>-*^;& Sample volume . . 111
Gbmnieht;'.
•'"vt-Scc instruction •
•••S'vv -- v-i: •-••:v.4,;Vv ',• ^'V
• .V ^'::gv|^iggS^^fg^ ccli;(ShcctName) •
-'Whit*Mes»^MHl •;.; .> r'v . •
FifiW D»la WiMksliwl for €rbundiirt'*i
Mill - Groundwater Discharge Permit
Groundwater Monitoring
Quality Assurance Plan (QAP)
Date: 3-22-10 Revision 6
Page 42 of 50
ATTACHMENT 1
WHITE MESA URANIUM MILL
FIELD DATA WORKSHEET FOR GROUND WATER
Description of Sampling Event: ^ /
Location (well name)_
Sampler
Name and initials ^ 3
Date and Time for F*urging. .and Sampling (if different)_
Well Purging Equip Used: . pump or bailer^ Well Pump (if other than Bennet) J
Sampling Event ^ / Prev. Well Sampled in Sampling Event ^ ?
pH Buffer 7.0 ^ /O pH Buffer 4.0 ^//
Specific Conductance "^^-^ uMHOS/cm Well Depth
Depth to Water Before Purging i^i^
Conductance (avg)
Casing Volume (V) 4" Well: Z^" (.653h)
3" Well: (.367h)
pH of Water (avg) ^/f
Well Water Temp, (avg) Redox Potential (Eh)^^Turbidity ^tjlf
Weather Cond. Ext'l Amb. Temp.(prior to sampling event)_
Time: Gal. Purged M JjT
Conductance c?^
pH___^_12
Temperature_
Redox Potential (Eh) ^'3 f
Turbidity ^ JO
Time: Gal. Purged ^
Conductance 3^
PH_
Temperature.
Redox Potential (Eh) ^ 3C
Turbidity
Time: -H- 4<r Gal. Purged
Conductance
pH ^ ^9
Temperature_
Time: ^ 5vP Gal. Purged 4 3f
Conductance ¥o
pH ^ V/
Temperature_ itV%>
Redox Potential (Eh).
Turbidity ^''f
Redox Potential (Eh) t^SS
Turbidity itdr
Mill - Groundwater Discharge Permit
Groundwater Monitoring
Quality Assurance Plan (QAP)
Date: 3-22-10 Revision 6
Page 43 of 50
Volume of Water Purged When Field Parameters are Measured.
Pumping Rate Calculation
Flow Rate (Q), in gpm.
S/60 = = ir 6^3
Time to evacuate two casing volumes (2V)
T = 2V/Q = -^Jy
Number of casing volumes evacuated (if other than two)
If well evacuated to dryness, number of gallons evacuated_
Name of Certified Analytical Laboratory if Other Than Energy Labs jlS^
Type of Sample Sample
Taken
(circle)
Sample Volume
(indicate if other
than as specified
below)
Filtered
(circle)
Preservative Added
(circle)
VOCs N 3x40 ml N HCL N
Nutrients N 100 ml N H.SO, Y N
Heavy Metals Y N 250 ml Y N HNO, N
All Other
Radiologics
Non-Y N 250 ml Y N No Preservative Added
Gross Alpha Y N 1,000 ml N H,SO. Y N
Other (specify) N Sample volume N
Comments
Y N
If a preservative is used.
Specify Type and
Quantity of Preservative:
MM - Groundwater D+scharge Permit
Groundwater Monitoring Quality Assurartee Plan; (QAPJ
ATTACHMENT 1
WHITE MESA URANIUM MILL
FTELB DATA WORKSHEET FOR GROUND WATER
:C^tei03/22/2GlQ Rev. f
Attachment 1
•:*ji*:-v-;v:::-;:s":-?^;^ '-'-f' See instructian
I?escription df SampHng Event
Loeatiott (well name):
Sampler Name
and initials:
Date and Time for Purging
Purging Equip Used:I • pump or O bailer
Sampiing Event
pH Buffer 7.()
Specific Conductance|
and Sampling (if different)
Well Pump (if other than Bennet)
Prev. Well Sampled in Sampling Event
pH Buffer 4.0
j^MHOS/ cm
Depth to Water Before Purging M:/ '^
Well Depdi(0.01ft):
Casing Vohmie (V) 4" Well:
3" Well:
(:653h)
(.367h)
Conductance (avg) pH of Water (avg)
Well Water Temp, (avg) \ / f
Weather Cond,
Redox Potential (Eh)j Turbid ity f
Ext'l Amb. Temp. 'C (prior sampHng event)
Time
Conductance
Temp.X
Gal. Purged ^ Jl^
Redox Potential Eh (mV) j ja^
Turbidity (NTU)
Time
Conductance
Temp. "C
Gal. Purged j W3tU
pH
Redox Potential Eh (mV) j M^3i
Turbidity^ (NTU)
Time
Conductance
Temp.T
^3f
WW-
Gal. Purged { ^ 3f
Redox Poteniial Eh (mV) | ^2
Turbidity (NTLI)
Conductance ^ pH | 4^
;.;Sernp.*--:r\^:-
Redox Potential Eh (m\0 1 #^
Turbidity (NTU) ^.jr>
white Mesa;|Mfll •
Field: Data: Worksheet for Groundwater capturx' COMPAriBLE WITH
. ' 1 of 2
'/i:'—FtiNCTIOMALIT
MiN - 6rouTtdwater EHscharge P*!rmit
Stbundwatef Mprittofmg Qu^ty (9^P|
Date: 03/22/2010 Rev. {
Volume of Water Purged ^ | -ji^
Pumping Rate Calculation .
Flow Rate_(QX irigprn.
iiiii
gaiiori^s)
Time to evacuate two casing volumes
Number of casing vxjlumes evacuated (if other than two)
if well evacuated to dryness, number of gall ons evacuated
Name of Certified Analytical Laboratory if Other Than Energy X>abjvfc^^g|^
r Type of Samplc
Samp lc Vol (indicate :;;.vil^e|ei^
Y N speciried below) Y N Silliii:-!
• • • • •
i|i||iiel^ • • • n
• • 250 ml • • iiWiiiiilSlliS • •
Al! Other Non Radiologics : o D iliiiiwiifflP • •
• o iiiiSilliiflliiii • O iiliiiiiliil .0 • .
Other (specify) llsli lii ilii
v's. . • Type and Quantity (>f :H::UK:U;:^ffyly^-'i
:;||?v':;:v||^"f^ .^-^'tvvi-'KvP
V. ;vv|Cv^^ vvi; •••••• v^ vrviia';:-: ••
iiiii^^
:Comment
^; W touch this cell (ShectName)
White Mesa Mill
Field Data Worksheet for Groundwater 'f UNCTibtUAUl.t
APPENDIX B
Notice and Affirmative Defense Submitted January 26, 2011
DENISO
MINES
DENISO
MINES
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
1050 i7th Street, Suite 950
Denver, CO 80265
USA i
Tei: 303 628-7798
Fax : [phone]
www.denisonmines.com
January 26, 2011
VIA E-MAIL AND OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
Rusty Lundberg, Co-Executive Secretary
Utah Water Quality Board
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
195 North 1950 West
P.O. Box 144810
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4810
Re: State of Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit No. UGW370004 White Mesa Uranium Mill -
Notice Pursuant to Part I.G.3 of the Permit and UAC R317-6-6.16(C)
Dear Mr. Lundberg:
Please take notice pursuant to Part I.G.3 of the White Mesa Mill's (the "Mill's") State of Utah Groundwater
Discharge Permit No. UGW370004 (the "Permit") and Utah Administrative Code ("UAC")! R313-6-6.16(C) that
Denison Mines (USA) Corp. ("Denison"), as operator of the Mill and holder of the Permit, failed to meet the
28-day holding time for mercury analysis in fourth quarter 2010 groundwater samples as required by the
approved version of the Mill's Quality Assurance Plan ("QAP").
Initial notice of this failure was given by telephone to Mr. Philip Goble of the Utah Department of
Environmental Quality ("UDEQ") at approximately 1:15pm on Wednesday January 19, 2011 at 801-536-4262
(within 24 hours of the discovery).
1. Facts and Background Information
a) Denison performed its routine review of laboratory data from Energy Laboratories ("EL") and Arnerica
West Analytical Laboratories for compliance with requirements of the QAP during the week of
January 17, 2011. |
j
b) The currently approved Denison White Mesa Mill QAP, Table 1, requires the use of Method E200.8
for the analysis of mercury. This table also requires a 28 day holding time for 'mercury; that is, that
samples be analyzed for mercury within 28 days ofthe date of sample collection.
c) EL has performed all the metals analyses for the Mill's groundwater program, since prior to 1995. EL
performed the mercury analysis for the Mill's fourth quarter 2010 groundwater samples. EL has
consistently been able to meet a 28 day holding time for mercury samples; that is, they have
consistently performed mercury analysis within 28 days of the sample collection.
d) During the week of January 17, 2011, Denison identified that 10 groundwater samples and one
duplicate sample analyzed by EL for mercury were analyzed after the 28 day holding time had
N:\Notices\GW Hg hold tinne notice 01.24.11\01.26.11_Notice_to._RLundberg_Hg_hold_times.doc |
Letter to Mr. Rusty Lundberg
January 26, 2011
Page 2
expired. Denison contacted EL regarding the lab's failure to meet the holding time required in the
QAP.
e) EL is currently Utah State certified for, and uses for Denison's groundwater analyses, Method 200.8
Determination of Trace Elements in Water and Wastes by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass
Spectrometry, Revision 5.4 dated 1994. This method, which is required by the QAP, lists the holding
time for mercury as 6 months. This method is the currently promulgated method per 40 CFR 141 and
143 (September 1998). A proposed update, Draft Revision 5.5, has not been approved by EPA.
f) Denison collected all the samples for groundwater mercury during the period from November 15 to
November 29, 2010. EL received all of Denison's fourth quarter groundwater mercury samples
during the period from November 19, 2010 through November 24, 2010. Due to the laboratory staff
schedules during the holidays, EL did not have enough available staff to analyze the mercury
samples within the 28 day hold time, which expired on December 13, 2010 for the eariiest, and
December 28, 2010 for the latest of the mercury samples.
g) Denison received the initial data reports containing two of the mercury results on December 30, 2010,
too late to perform re-sampling within the fourth quarter. Denison received the remainder of the
needed data reports required for the quality assurance review, after the close of the fourth quarter, on
January 6, 2011.
h) Following Denison's review of the data, during phone conversations and emails with EL, the lab
advised Denison that:
a. there was room for confusion in interpreting the discrepancy between the 6-month hold time
identified In Method 200.8 Revision 5.4 and the 28-day hold time identified in 40 CFR 141
and 143. This is partlculariy so given footnote 3 in the table in 40 CFR 141.23{k)(2), which
states that:
"In all cases, samples should be analyzed as soon after collection as possible.
Follow additional (if any) information on preservation, containers or holding times that
Is specified in the method."
This could be interpreted to mean that the more specific holding time requirement in the
method should prevail over the holding time specified in the table, and
b. EL assumed the 6-month hold time in approved Method 200.8 Revision 5.4 was applicable.
Based on EL's interpretation, EL assumed that the 6-month hold time was applicable and the
samples were not out of hold.
i) Denison concluded that regardless of the holding time stated in EL's certified Method, the 28-day
hold time stated in the QAP should be considered correct and should be adhered to forthe following
reasons:
a. The Mill's QAP requires a 28-day holding time.
b. The September 1998 publication of 40 CFR 141 and 143 states a 28-day holding time
(notwithstanding footnote 3 referred to above).
c. Industry standards and practice appear to require a 28-day holding time for mercury.
d. In the draft revision 5.5 of Method E200.8, the holding time for mercury has been changed to
28 days, presumably to be consistent with industry practices and standards.
DENISOl
MINES
Letter to Mr. Rusty Lundberg
January 26, 2011
Page 3
2. Action Taken
Following discussion with EL, and upon reaching the conclusion that the 28-day hold time was applicable and
had been exceeded, Denison took the following actions:
a) Denison provided phone notification to Mr Philip Goble of the Utah Department of Environmental
Quality on Wednesday January 19, 2011 at 801-536-4262 (during the week in which Denison
performed its review of the laboratory data and discovered the mistake). .
b) Denison re-contacted EL by email and informed the lab that:
a. The 28-day mercury hold time in the QAP is applicable and mandatory regardless of EL's
interpretation of a longer hold time as stated in their certified method.
b. El is required for all future samples to meet the 28-day hold time for mercury.
3. Root Cause
The root cause analysis is as follows.
a) There exists a discrepancy between the holding time stated in the approved Method 200.8 Revision
5.4, for which EL is certified, and other statements of holding time for this method, as appear in the
1998 40 CFR 141 and 143, and the proposed update to Method 200.8.
b) There was some confusion on the part of the lab in determining the applicable holding time. The lab
misinterpreted the discrepancy. Operating under the assumption that the 6-month holding time was
applicable, the lab did not analyze the samples in time or notify Denison in time to recollect samples
to meet a 28-day holding time.
4. Actions That Will be Taken to Prevent a Reoccurrence of this Incident
The following actions will have already been taken to prevent a reoccurrence of this incident:
a) As stated above, Denison re-contacted EL by email and informed the lab that:
a. The 28-day mercury hold time in the QAP is applicable and mandatory regardless of EL's
interpretation of a longer hold time as stated in their certified method.
b. El is required for all future samples to meet the 28-day hold time for mercury.
5. Affirmative Defense
Denison believes that the affirmative defense in Part I.G.3.C) of the Permit should be applicable to this
incident, for the following reasons:
a) Notification
By virtue of the initial oral notification given to UDEQ at Wednesday, January 19, 2011, and this written
notice, Denison has submitted notification under UAC R317-6-6.13.
b) Failure was not Intentional or Caused by the Permittee's Negligence
DENISO
MINES
Letter to Mr. Rusty Lundberg
January 26, 2011
Page 4
The exceedance ofthe mercury holding time was not intentional or caused by Denison's negligence, either In
action or in failure to act. Denison used diligence in implementing the improved QA/QC review protocols
which resulted in the identification ofthe holding time exceedance. Similariy, the exceedance was not caused
by EL's negligence. EL reviewed its Utah Method Certification and Methods description to determine the
applicable holding time; however, during that review, EL misinterpreted an existing discrepancy in the
requirements within the methods.
c) The Permittee has Taken Adequate Measures to Meet Permit Conditions
Denison has taken adequate measures to meet Permit conditions in a timely manner. Denison contacted
UDEQ the same day that Denison corporate staff had received enough information to conclude and confimi
that a holding time exceedance had occurred. Denison has already notified the laboratory in writing that the
laboratory's interpretation was erroneous, and that EL is required to meet the conditions in Denison's
groundwater QAP.
d) The Provisions of UCA 19-5-107 Have Not Been Violated
The provisions of Utah Code 19-5-107 have not been violated. There has been no discharge ofa pollutant
into waters of the state. Denison has not caused pollution which constitutes a menace to public health and
welfare, or is harmful to wildlife, fish or aquatic life, or impairs domestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational, or
other beneficial uses of water, nor has Denison placed or caused to be placed any waste in a location where
there is probable cause to believe it will cause pollution.
There was no discharge of solutions from the Mill's tailings impoundments.
Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions or require any further information;
Yours very truly,
DENISON MINES (USA) CORP.
Jo Ann Tischler
Director, Compliance and Permitting
cc: Rich Bartlett
David C. Frydenlund
Harold R. Roberts
David E. Turk
Central files
DENISO
MINES