DRC-2012-001184 - 0901a068802b2869

State of Utah
GARYR HERBERT
Governor
GREG BELL
Lieutenant Governor
Department of
Environmental Quality
Amanda Smith
Executive Director
DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
Rusty Lundberg
Director
DRC-2012-001184
MEMORANDUM
TO
THROUGH
FROM
DATE
SUBJECT
References
2.//<:/'Z.o('L.
Rusty Lundberg
Phil Goble
David Rupp
February 16 2012
Denison Mines Tailings Cell 2
Slimes Dram Recovery Results for
Calendar Years 2009 2010 and 2011
a DRC MEMO dated May 3 2011 subject Decision Paper for Possible NOV DUSA Exceedance
of Ground Water Discharge Permit Elevation Requirements for Dewatering of Tailings Cell No 2
Fourth Quarter 2010 DMT Monitoring Report
b DRC Transmittal Letter dated Dec 20 2011 subject Same as above Failure to Meet Affirmative
Defense Requirements and Draft Stipulated Consent Agreement
c DUSA Letter dated January 27 2012 subject Failure to Meet Affirmative Defense Requirements
Cell 2 Slimes Dram Recovery Elevation
d Ground Water Discharge Permit for DUSA Part ID 3
As you are aware DUSA is in process to dewater Tailings Cell 2 at DUSA To date this process has
consisted of pumping and diverting water from a slimes drain system and placing temporary soil cover
over the tailings cell
The slimes drain system is a drainage system above the synthetic liner m the bottom tailings cell The
intent of the slimes dram system is to collect and allow the removal of residual water inventory from the
system via a single access pipe Therefore when pumping ceases for a sufficient time the access pipe acts
as a piezometer and the water surface becomes static This static level is known as the slimes drain
recovery elevation (SDRE) The elevation of the water inventory m the cell is determmed by stopping the
pump for a sufficient time then measuring the distance from a known elevation at the top of the access
pipe to the static water surface
Temporary soil covers have been placed on Cell 2 prior to 2006 and in 2011 to divert storm water off the
cell and prevent it from becoming part of the water inventory below the surface
195 North 1950 West Salt Lake City UT
Maihng Address POBox 144850 Salt Lake City UT 84114 4850
Telephone [phone] Fax [phone] TDD [phone]
WKW d q thg
Pn t d 100% e y I d p p
Page 2
The permit reference (d) requires the average annual slimes drain recovery elevation to decrease each
year and to be calculated by using a moving 3 year annual average DRC is now in possession of figures
for three distinct 3 year annual averages of the slimes drain recovery elevation (SDRE) for Cell 2 at
DUSA These figures are given in feet above mean sea level (fmsl) These average SDREs corrected for
survey errors are as follows
Calendar Year 3 vear SDRE Annual
Average
2009 5600 16 fmsl
2010 5600 25 fmsl
2011 5600 00 fmsl
For 2010 DUSA reported the nse from 5600 16 to 5600 25 fmsl This 1 1/8 inch rise in the average annual
SDRE elevation is a violation of the permit This event is documented in references (a) and (b) above
DRC also proposed a stipulated consent agreement (SCA) to DUSA via reference (b) to encourage DUSA
to come into compliance with the permit beginning in 2011 and future years DRC chose this approach
rather than issue an NOV for the violation in 2010
DUSA demonstrated in reference (c) dated Jan 27 2012 that for 2011 the average SDRE decreased to
5600 00 fmsl or dropped 3 inches Thus calendar year 2011 is m compliance DUSA has stated there is
no need for a SCA as they are now in compliance I tend to agree with them at this point
Therefore as far as the average annual SDRE is concemed I suggest we issue an NOED for the 2010
violation and watch future annual reports If DUSA is ineffective in future years m coming into
compliance we can reissue the SCA for DUSA s consideration or take other action
END
because. AO of^e^r(L// <J<^cr^asz. ^P>R.e /ias 6ccu/^re.d
Page 1 of2
Phillip Goble - Re Fwd Denison Response to Cell 2 Slimes Dram Recovery
Elevation
From Loren Morton
To Phillip Goble
Date 2/3/2012 8 04 AM
Subject Re Fwd Denison Response to Cell 2 Slimes Dram Recovery Elevation
CC Dave Rupp John Hultquist Rusty Lundberg
Phil,
Dave Rupp sent me a copy of the DUSA response I have a few questions / thoughts for you to consider
1 What are the next steps for DRC on this"? Looks like Dave Frydenlund wants to avoid a consent agreement
2 They extended the vertical slimes dram access pipe has anyone verified what they really did? Have our
staff done any field inspections, i e measured the new depth of the access pipe and compared it to the former
total depth? Where is the recovery water level elevation now and how does that compare to previous
elevations It s important that extending the pipe not be used as a ruse to come back into compliance on the
slimes dram water level recovery elevation
3 Adding more temporary cover to Cell 2 should have increased the static load on the tailings decreased the
porosity and increased the leachate water level elevation This transient response, should make more water
available inside the access pipe for removal (per hour), but given the low permeability of the tailings and the
fact under dram piping system is so limited across the floor of Cell 2, it may take a significant amount of time
for the water level elevations to return to a steady state, and decline to levels that are below where they
previously were In other words water levels may rise before they start to fall (get better) again Have we
seen any corresponding transient response in the recovery water level elevations (rise or fall)'
4 It IS apparent that they are putting all their marbles on re grading the temporary cover as a means of
denying stormwater accumulation and recharge to the cell That is fine, but they are ignoring what the added
load will do to the water levels
Almost Final Thought overall, increasing the density of the tailings to provide a stable platform for the cover
system is our primary goal (Job 1) Next to that, getting a final cover system constructed is Job 2 (to deny
infiltration / radon emanation) Leachate removal along the way is a side benefit although important for GW
protection Considering Sarah Fields comments regarding interim milestones for DUSA reclamation, we may be
able to provide more protection to the environment, by changing the strategy in the Permit / License to focus on
tailings settlement monitoring and setting deadlines for completion of cover construction
Final Thought (really) improved slimes dram design / performance in future construction is critical
What do you think?
Loren
»> Phillip Goble 1/30/12 11 44 AM »>
See the attached
>>> Rusty Lundberg 1/30/2012 7 48 AM >>>
FYI
file IlC \Documents and Settings\Pgoble\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4F2B951AEQDO 2/6/2012
fir,j4j ^ A/y. kilJ M^-f-TXiSA
^Mjr/y £Atd w& ull II r&i/i&ia -Htui- rent A u)ke>i>^ eaur^ea
a
to a xn
m
ET
HI
o xn o
U.S. Postal Service TM
CERTIFIED MAILM RECEIPT
(Dainestic Mail Only; N» insurance Cmverage Prtviileil)
F«r delivery inf»rmati«n visit Bur website at www.usps.c«m,H
OFFICIAL U S "'•£
Postage
Certified Fee
RE 12/20/11 t affirmative / DR
Postage
Certified Fee
RE 12/20/11 failure to mee t affirmative / DR
a' David C Frydenlund
I Vice President & General Counsel
•
r=l
Demson Mines (USA) Corp (DUSA)
105017th ST STE 950
Denver CO 80265
City State Z/P+4"
PS Perm 3«M. August 2MS
7
<
/ (
SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY
• Complete items 1 2 and 3 Also complete
Item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired
• Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you !
• Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece (
or on the front if space permits '
A Receiv^dby (Please Print dearly) B Date of Delivery
i-^^^U-^li/
• Complete items 1 2 and 3 Also complete
Item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired
• Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you !
• Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece (
or on the front if space permits '
0 Signature r\
^V~^ I\ l\ • Agent
Y "•"•-•^^-^>-^>^ • Addressee
.
1 Article Addressed to
D Is delivery address different from item I"? • Yes
If YES enter delivery address below • No
David 0 Frydenlund /
Vice President & General Counsel 3 service Type
Denison Mines (USA) Corp (DUSA) / • certified Man • Express Mail
105017th ST STE 950
Denver CO 80265
• Registered • Return Receipt for Merchandise ^
• Insured Mail • C O D
4 Restricted Delivery'? (Extra Fee) • Yes
2 Article Number (Copy from serv/ce label) 7D11 DUO ODDl 7^51 OOflQ 1 .1
PS Form 3811 July 1999 Domestic Return Receipt 102595 99 M 1789
State of Utah
GARYR HERBERT
Governor
GREG BELL
Lieutenant Governor
Department of
Environmental Quality
Amanda Smith
Executive Director
DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
Rusty Lundberg
Director
December 20 2011
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTED
David C Frydenlund
Vice President and Counsel
Denison Mines (USA) Corp (DUSA)
1050 17* Street Suite 950
Denver CO 80265
DearMr Frydenlund
SUBJECT Cell 2 Slimes Drain Recovery Elevation Requirements
Utah Ground Water Discharge Pemut UGW370004
Failure to Meet Affirmative Defense Requirements [Part I G 3(c)(3)] and
Draft Stipulated Consent Agreement
Division of Radiation Control (DRC) representatives have reviev^^ed the February 25 2011
Denison Mines (USA) Corp (DUSA) DMT Performance Standards Monitoring Report and Cell
4A BAT Performance Standards Monitoring Report for the 4* Quarter of 2010 It has been
determined the facility is not m compliance with a Discharge Minimization Technology (DMT)
requirement m Part ID 3(b)(3) of the subject Groundwater Discharge Permit as it relates to the
required decreasing annual 3 year average water level elevations in the Cell 2 slimes drain
observation pipe
This conclusion is supported by the Febmary 25 2011 DUSA report that states annual slimes
drain compliance has not been achieved for 2010 in accordance with Part ID 3 of the Permit
DRC has also reviewed DUSA letters dated May 27 June 17 and August 1 2011 in regard to this
matter The review shows that none of these letters fully meets the Affirmative Defense
requirements found m Part IG 3(c)(3) of the Permit m that
1 In the May 27 2011 letter DUSA made a commitment to improve the Cell 2 tailings
water level monitonng by installing multiple piezometers in the tailings (ibid p 4
Item b) DUSA and the DRC (parties) agreed upon this monitonng improvement
dunng a May 25 2011 telephone call Then in letter dated June 17 2011 DUSA
unilaterally retracted this commitment on the basis that piezometers would expenence
195 North 1950 West Salt Lake City UT
MailingAddress POBox 144850 Salt LakeCity UT 84114 4850
Telephone[phone] Fax [phone] TDD [phone]
www ei q thg
Pnnted o 100% recycled p pe
Page 2
artesian conditions be difficult to maintain and not be representative of head
conditions m the Cell 2 tailings or slimes dram These arguments were repeated in the
August 1 2011 DUSA letter After review of this matter we find that DUSA
withdrawal of the agreed on improvement to head monitonng raises significant
concems
We acknowledge your preferred actions that being a decrease in frequency of recovery
testing (and related gain in pumping efficiency) and re grading of the tailings surface
However due to possible small gains from this work we have little confidence that
these actions alone will result m a substantive and sustained decline m the Cell 2
tailings solutions levels and ultimately prevent or minimize the potential for
groundwater pollution
Further in a May 25 2011 telephone call we discussed other options available to
actively remove water from the Cell 2 slimes drain including but not limited to
addition of a senes of pumping wells and/or vertical wick drains m the tailings etc To
date you have declined to consider such active alternatives that would lead to
definitive reduction of wastewater elevation and inventory m Cell 2
2 None of the letters from DUSA provides a definite date by which the annual water
level trend m question will come back into compliance with the requirements of Part
ID 3 of the Permit (to have a decreasing water level trend) Instead DUSA has
expressed their opinion that at some future date the Co Executive Secretary should
consider enforcement discretion and/or agree to modify Equation 1 m the Permit This
IS premature and not appropnate in that
a Future water level data has not yet been collected and evaluated by DUSA and
shared with the DRC and
b DUSA has failed to provide a definitive determination of all the physical
mechanical or hydraulic factors that control water levels m the Cell 2 Slimes Drain
nor has DUSA provided any justification of how many of these are controlling or
sensitive to solving the non compliance
c Uncertainty in the effectiveness of the DUSA proposed action raises ongoing
concems
3 Because of this lack of deadline and justification the DUSA responses appear to
a Avoid operational responsibility for the increased water level trend observed in
Cell 2
b Fail to take the opportunity to maintain more of the wastewater inventory in the
more advanced and robust tailings Cells 4A and 4B and
c Delay efforts to prepare Cell 2 for reclamation thus defemng these costs to some
future date
In light of these findings DRC has determined it will not approve the DUSA proposed actions
pursuant to Part I G 3(c)(3) of the Permit As a result DUSA has been unsuccessful in defending
Itself against enforcement action at this time
_ s
[ —.,
Page 3 ^
To this end i draft stipulated consent agreement (SCA) is attached for y^our review and comment
The DRC is providing DUSA this opportunity to negotiate and sign this yoluntary SCA in order to^
resolve this matter without further administrative proceedings ^ 1 ,
Please give this letter and the enclosed SCA your immediate attention In the absence of your
response to this letter pnor to January,31 2012 we will consider other administrative alternatives
If you wish to discuss the draft SCA we are available for a conference call or meeting in Salt
Lake City Please contact me (801 536 4257) or Loren Morton of my staff (80lr 536 4262) to
arrange for a discussion ^ \\
UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD ^
Rusty Lundberg Co Executive Secretary
RL DAR LBM
Attachment
F\DUSA\N0Vs\SCA XmtlLtr 12 2011 doc
File DUSA GW Permit Enforcement
1—-
UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD
DRAFT
IN THE MATTER OF DOCKET No UGWll 06
DENISON MINES
(USA) CORPORATION
1050 l?'** Street, SUITE 950 STIPULATED
DENVER, COLORADO 80265 CONSENT AGREEMENT
This STIPULATED CONSENT AGREEMENT ( AGREEMENT ) is between DENISON
MINES (USA) CORP ( DUSA") and the UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD ( BOARD )
conceming violations of the Utah Water Quahty Act ( Act ) including sections 19 5 104 106
111 and 115 Utah Code Annotated ( UCA ) and in accordance with the Utah Administrative
Procedures Act UCA63G4 101 to 601 and the Utah Environmental Quality Code UCA 19 1 301
1 The BOARD has authonty to administer the Utah Water Quality Act
2 The CO EXECUTIVE SECRETARY of the BOARD (hereinafter the EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY ) will administer the tenns and provisions of this AGREEMENT Utah
Code Ann § 19 5 115
3 The parties wish to resolve this matter fully without further administrative proceedings
except to the extent provided herein by entenng into this AGREEMENT
4 This AGREEMENT does not in any way relieve DUSA from any other obligation imposed
under the Act or any other State or Federal laws mles and regulations
5 DUSA accepts the following facts and stipulations
A DUSA owns and operates a facility located approximately 6 miles south of Blanding
Utah on White Mesa in Sections 28 29 32 and 33 Township 37 South Range 22 East
Salt Lake Baseline and Mendian San Juan County Utah
B The DUSA facility receives and processes natural uranium beanng ores including
certain specified altemate feed matenals and possesses byproduct matenal in the form
of uranium waste tailings and other uranium byproduct waste generated by the
licensee s milling operations
C In accordance with the requirements of the Utah Administrative Code (hereinafter
UAC ) Ground Water Quality Protection R317 6 6 4(C)(3) [t]he Executive
Secretary may issue a ground water discharge permit for an existing facility provided
3) the applicant utilizes treatment and discharge minimization technology
commensurate with plant process design capability and similar or equivalent to that
utilized by facilities that produce similar products or services with similar production
process technology
D In accordance with the requirements of the UAC Ground Water Quality Protection
R317 6 6 14 [i]f monitonng or testing indicates that the permit conditions may be or
are being violated by ground water discharge operations or the facility is otherwise in an
out of compliance status the permittee shall promptly make corrections to the system
to correct all violations of the discharge permit
Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit No UGW370004 ( Permit ) was ongmally issued
to DUSA on March 8 2005 the Permit was last modified on July 14 2011
Part ID 3 (b)(3) of the March 17 2008* Permit issued to DUSA defines Discharge
Minimization Technology ( DMT ) performance standards and states as follows
Annual Slimes Drain Compliance shall be achieved when the average annual
wastewater recovery elevation m the slimes dram access pipe as determined pursuant to
the currently approved DMT Monitonng Plan meets the conditions m Equation 1 In
tum Equation 1 is defined m Part ID 3 of the Permit and mandates
i) monthly measurement of the slimes drain recovery elevation ( SDRE )
II) calculation of a 3 year mnning average of the SDRE and
III) that the overall average SDRE for the most recent year (hereinafter Y ) and
the 2 previous years (Y 1 and Y 2) is LESS than the average SDRE for the
previous 3 year interval i e the running average for years Y 1 Y 2 and Y 3
In other words DUSA is required to demonstrate a declining trend in 3 year
running average SDRE values
The declining annual 3 year runnmg average SDRE requirements at Part ID 3(b)(3)
and Equation 1 became effective upon execution of the March 17 2008 Permit and
have remained m force since The Permit change was first proposed by the Utah
Division of Radiation Control (hereafter DRC ) m a Draft Permit dated October
24 2007 The Draft Permit was made public for comment betv^een late October
and November 28 2007 On November 27 2007 a public meeting was held to
receive public comment on the Draft Permit A detailed chronology of the SDRE
testing requirements and the new performance standards of the Permit were found m
the October 24 2007 DRC Statement of Basis (pp 7 8) During the public
comment period no written or verbal comments were received from DUSA or any
member of the public per March 14 2008 DRC Public Participation Summary
G In a letter dated Febmary 25 2011 DUSA provided the DRC with the results of their
Annual Slimes Drain Compliance efforts in a combined report titled DMT Performance
Standards Monitoring Report and Cell 4A BAT Performance Standards Monitoring
Report for the 4* Quarter of 2010 This report includes in part the following
mformation
i) The last determination of the Tailings Cell 2 SDRE for 2010 was completed on
December 20 2010
ll) The conditions m Equation 1 had not been met at Tailings Cell 2 and
annual slimes drain compliance has not been achieved for 2010 in
accordance with Part ID 3 of the Permit
ill) A recommendation that the monitonng requirement in the Permit be modified
to allow the slimes drain pump sufficient running time to dewater the cell For
example the monitonng requirement could be reduced from monthly to
quarterly
H Part IG 3(c) of the Permit provides DUSA an opportunity to affirmatively defend itself
against enforcement action in the event of a DMT or BAT failure provided four
conditions are met as follows
i) DUSA must provide 24 hour verbal and 5 day wntten notice of the non
compliance
II) The failure or non compliance was not intentional or caused by negligence
either m action or inaction
III) DUSA has already taken adequate measures to meet all Permit conditions in a
timely manner or has submitted for Executive Secretary approval an
adequate plan and schedule for meeting the Permit conditions and
iv) DUSA has not caused pollution or potential for future pollution to Waters of
the State under UCA §19 5 107
I In a letter dated May 27 2011 DUSA provided notice to the Executive Secretary
regarding Cell 2 annual slimes drain compliance In this letter DUSA stated that
Denison recommended that the monitonng requirement in the Permit be modified to
allow the slimes drain pump sufficient running time to dewater the cell and suggested as
an example that the monitonng requirement could be reduced from monthly to quarterly
J On June 30 2011 the Executive Secretary sent an email to DUSA with draft changes to
the Ground Water Discharge Permit to change the slimes drain monitonng frequency
from monthly to quarterly This Permit modification was later executed by the Executive
Secretary on July 14 2011
K In a letter dated June 17 2011 DUSA provided the DRC with a status update with a plan
and schedule regarding Cell 2 slimes drain compliance In this letter DUSA committed
to the following three items
I To regrade the intenm cover fill on Cell 2 by August 1 2011
II That it has adjusted the slimes dram dewatenng pump to cycle on for a longer
' time and at a narrower range of solution levels than before and
3
ill That Denison believes a reduction in the monitonng frequency under the
current pumping and monitonng regime will likely be sufficient to result in
compliance with the Formula over time
L After DRC review of the above mentioned DUSA submittals the Executive Secretary
concludes that DUSA failed to meet the affirmative defense provisions of the Permit as
required by Part IG 3(c) on at least one count because DUSA failed to provide a schedule
for retum to compliance with the Equation 1 requirements i e re establishment of a
declining trend in the 3 year mnning average SDRE at Tailings Cell 2
6 DUSA agrees to
A Come into compliance with the requirements of Part ID 3 (b)(3) and Equation 1 of the
Permit by re estabhshing a declining 3 year mnning average SDRE trend at Tailings Cell
2 on or before December 31 2012 as determined by the Executive Secretary after DUSA
submission of the Fourth Quarter 2012 Routine DMT Performance Standards Monitonng
Report (hereafter Routine DMT PSM Report ) due on March 1 2013 pursuant to Part
IF 2 of the Permit and
B Thereafter maintain compliance with all requirements at the Tailings Cell 2 slimes dram
each and every calendar year for a minimum 10 year period Each year DUSA s
compliance will be determined by the Executive Secretary after review of the Fourth
Quarter Routine DMT PSM Report for each calendar year Pursuant to Part IF 2 of the
Permit the Routine DMT PSM Report is due on or before March 1 of the following year
7 DUSA agrees to pay stipulated penalty amounts for partial compliance or non compliance with
this STEPULATED CONSENT AGREEMENT If DUSA fails to comply or only partially
complies with the tenns m paragraph 6 of this STIPULATED CONSENT AGREEMENT
DUSA agrees to pay the stipulated amounts set forth below withm 30 days of receipt of wntten
request from the EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
A If DUSA fails to come into compliance by the end of calendar year 2012 as required in
Item 6 A DUSA agrees to pay stipulated penalties m the amount of $1 000 per calendar
day for every calendar day of non compliance m calendar year 2012 and
B If DUSA fails to maintain compliance for each calendar year between Januaiy 1 2013 and
December 31 2022 as required m Item 6 B DUSA agrees to pay stipulated penalties in
the amount of $5 000 per calendar day for every calendar day after December 31 of each
respective calendar year i e 2013 thm 2022
8 DUSA agrees to pay any required penalties within 30 days of wntten notice from the
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY in the form of a check made payable to the State of Utah
and delivered or mailed to
Division of Radiation Control
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
P O Box 144850
195 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City Utah 84114 4850
9 The BOARD will view completion all of the requirements outlined in this STIPULATED
CONSENT AGREEMENT as compliance with the AGREEMENT
10 The deadline stipulated m items 6 A and/or 6 B may be amended by pnor wntten mutual
agreement of the DUSA and the DRC ( Party ) The Party requesting the amendment must
wnte to the other Party 30 days before the stipulated deadline and request an amendment of
the deadline The other Party will either agree to or deny the amendment m wnting withm 30
days
11 Nothing contained in this AGREEMENT shall preclude the BOARD from taking additional
actions to include additional penalties against DUSA for permit violations not resolved by
this AGREEMENT
12 If an agreement between DUSA and the EXECUTIVE SECRETARY cannot be reached in
a dispute ansing under any provision of this AGREEMENT, DUSA or the EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY may commence an adjudicanve proceeding in accordance with the Utah
Environmental Quality Code UCA 19 1 301 and the Utah Administrative Procedures Act to
resolve the dispute A final decision in any adjudicative proceeding shall be subject to
judicial review under applicable state law
13 Nothing in this AGREEMENT shall constitute a waiver by DUSA to raise in defense of any
legal or factual contention for future allegations of noncompliance
14 Nothing in this AGREEMENT shall constitute or be considered as a release from any
claims to include natural resource damage claims cause of action or demand in law or
equity which the STATE may have against DUSA or any other person firm partnership or
corporation for any liability ansing out of or relating m any way to the release of pollutants to
waters of the State
15 While the BOARD is presently not considenng additional enforcement actions for any past
or ongoing violations nothing m this AGREEMENT shall preclude the BOARD from
taking such actions to include other penalties against DUSA for violations of the ACT or
permit violations not resolved by this AGREEMENT
AGREED to this day of 2011
DUSA UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD
By By_
David C Frydenlund Rusty Lundberg
Vice President and Counsel Co Executive Secretary
Denison Mines (USA) Corp
F \ \SCA Blackline final drft to Xmt 10 11 doc
At-
State of Utah
GARY R HERBERT
Governor
GREG BELL
Lieutenant Governor
Department of
Environmental Quality
Amanda Smith
Executive Director
DP/ISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
Rusty Lundberg
Director
July 14 2011
David C Frydenlund
Vice President and Counsel
Denison Mines (USA) Corp (DUSA)
1050 17'^ Street Suite 950
Denver, CO 80265
DearMr Frydenlund
SUBJECT Ground Water Discharge Permit UGW370004
- Permit Amendment
The following are attached for your attention
a Executed subject Ground Water Discharge Permit UGW370004 (Permit) Amendment
dated July 14 2011
b Statement of Basis Memorandum dated July 13 2011 for the subject Permit Amendment
c Marked copy of the subject Permit Amendment indicating the changes from the previous
Permit
This Permit change is a mmor modification to the Permit This Permit Amendment changes the
monitonng requirements for the slrnies dram recovery elevation testmg from monthly to quarterly
The vanous changes to the permit are discussed in detail in item b above
If you have questions on this Permit Amendment please contact David Rupp of my staff
UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD
Rusty Lundberg Co Executive Secretary
DARdr
Attachments
F \DUSA\GWDP\XmtlUr 7 14 11 doc
195 North 1950 West Salt Lake City UT
MailingAddress PO Box 144850 Salt Lake City UT 84114-4850
Telephone [phone] Fax (801) 533^097 TDD [phone]
www d q I I ^
P I d n 100?/ ecy I d p pe
ru n-to
J3
i-nl
IT ru tr
a
a
a ca ai
tr xn xn
U.S. Postal Service n>
CERTIFIED MAIL , RECEIPT
IbminesticlilaiLOnlVlNmlnsura^
'.-if^^iCl Al. il S b
Postage $
Certified Fee
Postmartt Postmartt
RE 7/14/11 GWDP/permit amendment / DR
David C Frydenlund
Vice President & General Counsel
Denison Mines (USA) Corp (DUSA)
1050 17th ST STE 950
Denver CO 80265
;PS:Ferm 3B00. Abgusl ^006 Sec Reverse fol-lnslriJclienS;;
SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION.
• Complete items 1 2 and 3 Also complete
rtem 4 it Restncted Delivery Is desired
• Pnnt your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you
• Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece
or on ttie front If space permits
COMPLETE THIS;SECTmN 9N BEUIVEM
A. Signature
• Asent [
• Addressee (
B Receiv
1 Article Mdressed to
' RE 7/14/11 GWDpZpermit amendment DR
Davfd C Frydenlund
I Vice President & General Counsel
I Demson Mines (USA) Corp (DUSA)
I 1050 17th ST STE 950 \
Denver CO 80265
s\vefi^( Pnnted Name)
- _•
D Is delivery address different from item 1 ? D Yes
If YES enter del very address betov* D No
0 O^ta ofpelivery
ervice Type
• Certified Mali • Express Mall
• Registered • Retum Receipt lor Merchandise
• Insured Mail • C O D
4 Restricted Delivery? (Eri/a Fe©; • Yes
1 2 Article Number
(Transfer from se/vtoe/abeO , 700=1 IbBO DOOl b67E
— — (
1 (
j PS Form 3811 February 2004 Domestic Retum Receipt 102595-02-M-154o|
State of Utah
GARYR HERBERT
Governor
GREG BELL
Lieutehant Governor
Department of
Environmental Quality
Amanda Smith
Executive Director
DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
Rusty Lundberg
Director
MEMORANDUM
TO
FROM
DATE
SUBJECT
Rusty Lundberg
Dave Rupp and Loren Morton
July 13 2011
Statement of Basis for Minor Modification to DUSA Ground Water Discharge
Permit (the Permit) Reduced Slimes Dram Recovery Elevation (SDRE) for Cell
2 Monitonng Frequency Change of SDRE Testmg to Quarterly Monitonng from
Monthly Monitonng
See attached markup of the current Permit last modified on Febmary 15 2011 This proposed
markup is a monitonng change for the subject SDRE from monthly to quarterly [Part ID 3(b)
etc ]
This change was proposed by DUSA in three (3) submittals from DUSA dated Febmary 25 May
27 and June 17 2011 After review of the requested change in monitonng frequency the DRC
considers the proposed change to be a minor modification to the permit and it is recommended
we proceed with the change as this action has the potential to 1) increase the annual volume of
slimes dram wastewater pumped from Cell 2 and 2) reduce the volume of wastewater stored in
the Cell 2 tailings that otherwise might have potential to leak to underlying soil and groundwater
without this change
Additional collateral changes were also made to the Permit includmg
A Parallel changes for Cells 3 4A and 4B slimes dram SDRE monitonng as shown
m vanous locations m the permit text These are related to the following Permit
sections
a Consistent performance standards for Cells 4A and 4B [shown in Parts ID 6(c)
andID 13(c)l
b Consistent monitonng requirements for Cells 2 and 3 [Part IE 7(b)l and Cells
4A and 4B [Parts IE 8(b) and IE 12(b)]
c Consistent reporting requirements for Cells 2 and 3 [Part IF 11] Reporting
requirements for Cells 4A and 4B will need to be added to the Permit at a
future date when dewatenng begins there
B Change to the Cell 2 Slimes Dram Performance Standard The mathematics of
195 North 1950 West Salt Uke City UT
MailingAddress POBox 144850 SaltLakeCity UT 84114 4850
Telephone [phone] Fax [phone] TDD [phone]
wwwd q thg
Pr 1 d 100% re y 1 d pape
Page 2
Equation 1 given in ID 3(b)(3) are changed to accommodate the new quarterly
monitonng frequency This formula is used to determme and compare the average
head of three earlier years (years 2 3 and 4 years ago) m the slimes drain to the
average annual head of the three most current years (years 1 2 and 3 years ago)
The purpose of this formula change is to equally weight the entries for new
quarterly readings with the former monthly readings Thus the fewer quarterly
readings will not be diminished m weight relative to the former monthly readings
m calculation of annual average head
C New compliance schedule item at Part IH 7 to require DUSA to update / revise the
DMT Monitonng and the Cell 4A and 4B BAT O&M plans to reflect this change
D The July 11 2011 effective date for use of quarterly monitonng [Part ID 3(b)(2)]
and the August 1 2011 deadline for DUSA to submit the revised DMT and BAT
monitonng plans [Part IH 7] were provided as a means of expediting
implementation of the new monitonng frequency and to encourage DUSA
progress in de watenng the Cell 2 tailings '
Attachment Changes to G W P 07 14 11 SDRE Mos to Quarterly Monitoring doc
State of Utah
GARYR HERBERT
Governor
GREG BELL
Lieutenant Governor
Department of
Environmental Quality
Amanda Smith
Executive Director
DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
Rusty Lundberg
Director
MEMORANDUM
TO
FROM
DATE
SUBJECT
Rusty Lundberg and Loren Morton
Dave Rupp ^^i^ ^
May 3 2011
Decision Paper for Possible NOV
DUSA Exceedance of Ground Water Discharge Pemut Elevation Requirements for
Dewatenng of Tailings Cell No 2 Fourth Quarter 2010 DMT Momtonng Report
Summarv
The DUSA Ground Water Discharge Permit requires that the below ground stabilized phreatic water
surface elevation in tailings Cell 2 drop when compared to the previous average years as defined by a
formula found in the permit In the year 2010 this stabilized phreatic surface rose 0 09 feet (1 08 inches)
compared to previous years This violates the permit requirements This MEMO discusses the background
of the dewatenng requirements Some verbiage is also quoted Quoted verbiage of sigmficance is
underlined and is m blue below for emphasis
It appears we have a positive position for issuing an NOV for this result However DUSA appears to have
a weaker argument based on the fact that we have created this problem by bemg prescnptive with
momtonng requirements for Cell 2 dewatenng efforts
Please let me know if you have questions or wish to proceed or not to issuance of an NOV regardmg their
unsuccessful dewatenng of Cell 2
I Background
Historically beginning m 2007 DRC has attempted to wnte Permit requirements on this subject to be non
prescnptive This was to allow DUSA freedom to take whatever actions they deem necessary to meet the
requirement The permit requirement is to keep reducmg the annual average slimes drain recovery
elevation (SDRE) below the annual average SDRE of the previous year which is defmed as being
ALARA
In the subject 2010 4**^ Quarter report DUSA states a position that the DRC momtormg requirements are
prescnptive and it interferes with the dewatenng of the tailings cell As a result of the prescnptive nature
ofthe momtormg coupled with unusually wet weather DUSA is unable to meet the permit requirements
and thus the current aimual average SDRE is above the annual average SDRE of a year ago
II Arguments, Findings, and References
A ALARA Argument The monitonng method to determine the SDRE is prescnptive It is defined
m the DMT Plan However the DMT Plan and Permit attempt to be silent with respect to methods to
195 North 1950 West Salt Lake City UT
MailingAddress POBox 144850 Salt Lake City UT 84114 4850
Telephone [phone] Fax [phone] TDD [phone]
•www d q thg
Pn t d 100/ recycled p pe
Page 2
attain compliance
1 Eg some possible methods in addition to the status quo are
a Covenng the tailmgs surface with some type of lmer system to divert
storm water and reduce infiltration and thus the SDRE
b Installmg an orgamzed vegetative cover to increase transpiration and thus
reduce the SDRE
c Use of an additional well point(s) pump(s) and piezometers to reduce the
SDRE
d Adjustment of the pump specifications to be more efficient and increase
the aimual volume of discharge and thus reduce the SDRE
e Other innovative methods
2 In the approved DMT Plan DUSA makes a statement that Mill management considers that the
* average allowable wastewater head m the Cell 2 slimes drain resulting from pumping in this
manner is satisfactory and is as low as reasonablv achievable Although the DMT Plan was
approved by DRC DRC only accepts this statement at face value i e that Mill management
considers the configuration as ALARA
3 DUSA argues m the subject 2010 4^ Quarter report the following pertaming to prescnptive
requirements
for the reasons discussed below Demson believes that the momtonng requirements of Part
ID 3(b )(2) senouslv interfere with Demson s abilitv to complv with Parts ID 3(b)(i) and ID 3
(b)(3) and should be amended
Part ID 3(b)(2) of the Permit requires that each slimes drain monthly momtormg test 1)
includes a duration of at least 90 hours as measured from the time that pumping ceases and 2)
achieves a stable water level at the end of the test as measured by three consecutive hourly
water level depth measurements with no change in water level as measured to the nearest 0 01
foot
It should be noted that, m 2010, order to meet the test requirements
1 The slimes dram pump has remained off an average of 6 42 davs per month everv month
for performance of the measurements, and
2 This means that the slimes drain pump remains off approximatelv 77 davs (11 weeks) per
vear or 20 percent of the vear for performance of measurements
That is, in order to meet the requirements for testmg m Part ID 3(b)(2) of the Permit, it has
not been possible to mn the slimes dram pump often enough to meet the requirement m Part
ID 3(b)(1) of the Permit that Demson mamtam the average wastewater recoverv head m the
slimes dram access pipe as low as reasonablv achievable, when the pump can onlv be run 80%
of the time That is, the momtormg requirement to demonstrate the slimes drain level has been
reduced, senouslv interferes with the pumping needed to reduce the slimes drain level
Nonetheless, even with the limitation of operating onlv 80% of the vear due to the monitonng
constraint, the Mill has maintained the slimes drain at an approximately constant level It is
anticipated that if the momtonng constramt were modified to allow more pumping time,
compliance with the Part ID 3(b) reqmrements could be achieved Demson recommends that
the momtonng requirement in the Permit be modified to allow the slimes dram pump sufficient
Page 3
mnnmg time to dewater the cell For example, the momtormg requirement could be reduced
from monthlv to quarterly This would reduce the dovmtime to approximatelv 26 davs per
vear, or increase the pumping time to 339 days per vear, or 93%, which would help '
In addition the following factors should be noted
1 The slimes dram elevation measured at the end of 2010 was lower than the slunes dram
elevation measured at the begiiming of 2009 mdicatmg an overall reduction in elevation
2 For both 2009 and 2010 there appeared to be a nse in elevation over the penod from
January through March followed by a reduction over the remainder of the year The rate
of reduction for the remainder of the year in 2010 was lower than in 2009 possibly due to
the sigmficantly higher precipitation expenenced in 2010 of 15 13 mches compared to
the 2009 total precipitation of 8 13 inches The Mill was able to maintain the 2010 slimes
dram recovery level within 1 inch of the preceding year s level despite the fact that the
annual precipitation was 7 mches (186%) higher than the precedmg year
B Duration Penod of Interest All SDRE data collected from 2006 2008 was deemed unacceptable to
DRC and has not been used For the subject 2010 4* Quarter report the penod of mterest is data from
2009 and 2010
C Documents of Interest
1 Ground Water Discharge Penrnt Since the August 26 2009 DRC review letter regardmg of
the first quarter 2009 DMT Momtormg Report (reference 1 below) DRC review of these
quarterly reports has stated that As you are aware as required by the Part ID 3 b 1 of the
permit the Permittee shall at all times mamtam the average wastewater head m the slimes
dram access pipe to be as low as reasonablv achievable in each tailmgs disposal cell, m
accordance with a DMT Momtonng Plan Compliance shall be achieved when the average
annual wastewater recovery elevation in the slimes dram access pipe, determined pursuant to
the currently approved DMT Monitonng Plan, meets the conditions m Equation 1 We note
that pursuant to Part ID 3(b) of the upcoming Ground Water Discharge Permit modification
that Cell 2 compliance in this matter will be determined after submittal of the 4* Quarter 2010
DMT Momtonng Report
2 White Mesa Mill Tailings Management System and Discharge Minimization Technology
(DMT) Monitoring Plan [DMT Vlan] 01/11 Revision Demson 11 1 DocumentumNo
DRC 2011 001089 The latest plan was approved on January 20 2011 It requires the
following with some verbiage underlined and in blue for emphasis
a Section 3 1b Slimes Dram Water Level Momtonng
(ill) The slimes dram pump in Cell 2 is activated and deactivated by a float mechamsm
and water level probe system When the water level reaches the level of the float
mechamsm the pump is activated Pumpmg then occurs until the water level
reaches the lower probe which tums the pump off The lower probe is located one
foot above the bottom of the slimes dram standpipe and the float valve is located
' DUSA appears to now believe that the existing configuration is not ALARA as they had earlier written that it was
Page 4
at five feet above the bottom of the slimes dram standpipe The average
wastewater head m the Cell 2 slimes dram [standpipe] is therefore less than 5 feet
and IS below the phreatic surface of tailings Cell 2 about 20 feet below the water
level measunng point on the slimes dram access pipe As a result there is a
contmuous flow of wastewater from Cell 2 into the slimes dram collection system
Mill management considers that the average allowable wastewater head in the Cell
2 slimes drain resultmg from pumpmg in this manner is satisfactory and is as low
as reasonably achievable
(vi) On a monthlv basis, the slimes drain pump will be tumed off and the wastewater
m the slimes dram access pipe will be allowed to stabilize for at least 90 hours
Once the water level has stabilized (based on no change m water level for three (3)
successive readings taken no less than one (1) hour apart) the water level of the
wastewater will be measured and recorded as a depth in pipe measurement on the
Monthly Inspection Data form, by measunng the depth to water below the water
level measunng point on the slimes dram access pipe
(vn) No process liquids shall be allowed to be discharged mto Cell 2
(viii) If at any time the most recent average annual head m the Cell 2 slimes dram is
found to have increased above the average head for the previous calendar vear, the
Licensee will comply with the requirements of Part IG 3 ofthe GWDP, includmg
the requirement to provide notification to the Executive Secretary orally within 24
hours followed by wntten notification
b DMT Plan, Section 8 2 e
An annual summary and graph for each calendar year of the depth to wastewater m the
Cell 2 slimes dram must be mcluded m the fourth quarter report After the first year and
begmnmg m 2008 quarterly reports shall include both the current year monthly values and
a graphic compemson to the previous year
Chronological References
1 Febmary 25 2011 the subject White Mesa Mill Discharge Minimization Technology (DMT)
Performance Standard Monitoring Report (DMT Report) and Cell 4A BAT Performance
Standards Monitoring Report (Cell 4A BAT Report) for the 4**^ Quarter 2010 submitted as a
single volume DRC 2011 002214
2 June 30 2010 Ground Water Discharge Permit Part ID 1 b 4 regarding Cell 2 states
a At cell closure, leachate head inside the pipe network will be removed via a
submersible pump installed inside the 24 mch diameter HDPE access pipe
b Part ID 3 b(l) states Slimes Dram Maximum Allowable Head the Permittee shall at all
times maintain the average wastewater head m the slimes dram access pipe to be as low as
reasonably achievable in each tailings disposal cell, in accordance with a DMT Momtonng
Plan
c Part ID 3 b 3 also states Aimual Slunes Dram Compliance shall be achieved when the
average annual wastewater recovery elevation m the slimes dram access pipe as
determmed pursuant to the cunently approved DMT Momtonng Plan meets the
conditions m Equation 1
Apnl 7 2009 DRC Notice of Non Compliance letter states DUSA must become more pro active
m providing mtemal QA control m areas of both test performance and report preparation Further
Page 5
we encourage DUSA to come to DRC with revisions to the DMT Plan, or other plan required by
the Permit, immediately after a problem is identified
4 Apnl 10 2008 DRC Confirmatory Action Letter with Comments and Recommendations This
letter states that
a From the reported static water levels on the subject we observe that there is a general
trend for the water level to be nsmg in this slimes dram dunng 2007
b We observed that on four (4) mconsecutive months (July August October and
November) of 2007 the cell 2 slimes dram pump was found to be not operatmg when the
monthly inspectors amved
c In light of the above findings DUSA mav need to make changes to the DMT Momtormg
Plan and make other efforts to ensure fiiture compliance with the requirement for declimng
annual average head in the Cell 2 slimes dram
5 October 4 2007 Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit Statement of Basis p 7 states
a Dunng review of the DMT Momtonng Plan for Cells 1 2 and 3 the Executive
Secretary determmed it necessary to impose certain operational momtormg and reporting
requirements The purpose of these new requirements is to 1) accelerate the dewatenng
ofthe tailing cells during post operations and 2) nummize the accumulation and storage of
fluids and contaminants in the tailing cells in order to protect public health and the
environment and local ground water resources To this end a new performance standard
was added to Part ID 3(b)(1) to require that compliance at the Cell 2 and 3 slimes dram is
defmed as contmuously declimng waste water head as determmed on an annual average
basis Conversely an increase in the annual average slimes head over that of the previous
year will be considered non compliant with the Permit
b To standardize slimes dram momtormg at cells 2 and 3 additional requirements were
added to Part IE 6(b) These changes include momtormg in accordance with the cunently
approved DMT Momtormg Plan which m tum calls for a monthly slimes dram recovery
head test of 90 hours
c To ensure the monthly and annual average slimes dram head data is provided to the
Executive Secretary for approval a new requirement was added at Part IF 11 In the event
that the average annual slimes dram recovery head for a given year is greater than the
previous year [see Part ID 3(a)l and the Executive Secretary may take enforcement action
to re establish DMT at Cells 2 and 3
d The Permittee is required to 1) measure individual monthly slimes dram recover head
momtonng data [as required m Part IE 6(b)] 2) calculate the average slimes dram
recovery head and 3) demonstrate compliance status with the requirements of Part ID 3
and 6 of this Permit for Tailmg Cells 3 and 3 This section of the Permit was added to
require the Permittee to submit an annual slimes dram recovery head report for Tailing
Cells 2 and 3 to summanze the above data
6 DUSA 1'* Quarter DMT Momtonng report dated June 1 2009 This is the first report which
established the new basis for the average annual SDRE for 2009
7 May 9 2007 DRC Letter regarding the DMT Plan states
2 Regarding Cell 2,
A )The DMT plan and the cover letter express that there is no need to consider other types of
pumping systems, as the reduction of the static head in Cell 2 is not a function ofthe speed
Page 6
of pumping out of the slimes dram access pipe and there are no practical altematives
However, no i ustification for these claims was provided
B ) Apart from pumping, it is important to note that the depth of static head on the Cell 2 lmer
can be reduced by methods such as covenng the tailings, improving transpiration, etc , to
meet the DMT performance standards (Ground Water Discharge Permit ID 3 b)
C ) Attaimng nummum head on the Cell 2 lmer is a maior step to closure ofthe cell
January 24 2007 DRC Letter regardmg a draft DMT Plan states
Regarding the wastewater head on the lmer m Cell 2 the Permit requires the permittee to
determine an average allowable head that is as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) The
existing pumpmg system has been functiomng there for a long time If there have been no process
mflows, the head may have been stabilized to a static level by that same pumping svstem
However, the head could also be increasing or decreasing The monthly changes m the head are
unknown, because no histonc head monitonng has been done
Paragraph 3 1 b in of the cunent DMT plan mentions that null management considers that the
head in Cell 2 from the existing pumping system is ALARA However, no lustification for this
claim was provided As noted above, the head in the cell may have been stabilized bv the existing
pumping system, but it may not be ALARA This is because more efficient pumpmg systems may
be available to lower the head even further
Please provide additional mformation and justification to show the existing pumping system
equipment and operation provides both a cost effective and maximum annual wastewater removal
Conversely if there are other pumping systems that can produce a maximum annual removal of
wastewater in a cost effective manner please identify and descnbe them
The following appears to be very important
To venfy that the existing pumping system is ALARA will require two demonstrations, as
follows
a Maximum and Cost Effective Removal of Wastewater, as mentioned above, and
b A Declimng or Static Wastewater Head - Evidence must be provided that the slimes dram
wastewater head in Cell 2 is declimng or static The static head case is appropnate in the event
that the above cost effective and maximum pumping case is made and accepted Conversely,
an increasing wastewater head m Cell 2 is not ALARA, and is not acceptable to the DRC
Therefore the DMT Plan needs to include the following
c A performance standard such that if at anv time the most recent average aimual head is
found to have increased above the average head for the previous calendar year, Demson
Mines will comply with the DMT Failure requirements of Part IG 3 of the Pemut
(including but not limited to reporting and conective actions)
September 26 2006 DRC Letter regarding a draft DMT Plan states The DMT plan needs to
include a method to measure the static head above the liner m Cell No 2 as part ofthe
performance cntena for the Ground Water Discharge Permit By measunng the change of the
static water level in the tailmgs, lUC will be able to show ifthe drop m head is being optmuzed by
the pumping technique bemg used
Page 7
Potential options to measure the static head above the lmer include mstalling a piezometer near
the slimes dram access pipe, or shuttmg ofthe pump and measunng the water level after static
equilibnum has been reached (i e a head recovery test)
As a fiiture reference the Ground Water Discharge Permit will need to be modified to mclude a
decline of the static water levels in the tailings as'a performance cntenon '
Other Mmor Miscellaneous Observations regarding the 2010 4^ Ouarter DMT Report
I LDS mspections for the New Decontamination Pad (NDP) Sedimentation Tank at the null are
recorded in the subject report for the penod of 4/2/10 through 6/25/10 These inspections
occuned although the NDP was not in use after a DRC Cease and Desist order regarding use of
this pad was issued on May 13 2010 DRC authonzed use of the NDP on Febmary 1 2011
II The report in paragraph 3 0 as well as Attachment A shows that numerous freeboard exceedances
for Cell 3 occuned dunng the 4**" Quarter of 2010 Freeboard exceedances for tailmgs Cell 3 were
not resolved dunng this reporting penod but were resolved in the next quarter per DRC letter
dated March 14 2011
ni Paragraph 7 0 of the report discusses lmer repairs are underway for the Cell 1 lmer as a result of
discovery of leakage in the Cell 1 LDS on June 2 2010 and later on August 7 2010 As approved
m a DRC Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) dated September 22 2010 DUSA has committed to
complete repau- of these leaks by July 31 2012 and submittal of the reqmred repair report by
December 1 2012
END
F \GWDP RelDoc \DMT&BAT R ports\2010\MEMO Sl me Dewate ing 5 2011 doc
Department of
Environmental Quality
Amanda Smith
Executive Director
State of Utah
DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
GARY R HERBERT Rusty Lundberg
Governor Director
GREG BELL
Lieutenant Governor
January 20 2011
CERTIFIED MAIL
(Retum Receipt Requested)
Ms Jo Ann Tischler
Director Compliance and Permitting
Denison Mines (USA) Corp (DUSA)
1050 17* Street Suite 950
Denver CO 80265
Dear Ms Tischler
SUBJECT January 10 2011 DUSA Letter Transmits Revised DMT and BAT O&M Plans which
addresses White Mesa Uramum Mill Tailings Cell 4B etc January 6 2011 DRC Letter
Review of Revised DMT and BAT O&M Plans
Contingent Approval of the Proposed DMT Plan
We have reviewed the subject letter from DUSA dated January 10 2011 which is a response to the subject
DRC comment letter of January 6 2011 The DUSA letter proposes the two subject documents noted
above However this letter only addresses the proposed DMT Plan as revised known as The White Mesa
Mill Tailings Management System and Discharge Minimization Technology (DMT) Monitormg Plan
(DMT Plan) Ol/Jl Revision Denison 11 1
After review of this plan we have no further comments Therefore the DMT Plan as titled immediately
above, is approved, contingent upon DUSA receiving wntten DRC authorization to use Cell 4B
r
UTAH RADIATION CONTROL BOARD
Rusty Lundberg Executive Secretary
DAR dr
Cc Harold R Roberts DUSA
Phillip Goble DRC
F\DUSA\ GWDPermitVDMT Plan HistoryXDMT Plan ContApproval 01 20 2011 doc
195 North 1950 West Salt Lake City UT
MailingAddress PO Box 144850 SaltLakeCity UT 84114 4850
Telephone [phone] Fax [phone] TDD [phone]
ivwvv d q I h g
Pr t d o 100% e y 1 d p pe
State of Utah
Department of
Environmental Quality
Richard W Sprott
Executive Director
Division of Radiation Control
Dane L Finerfrock
Director
JON M HUNTSMAN JR
Governor
GARY HERBERT
Lieutenant Governor
Apnl 10 2008
CERTIFIED MAIL
(Retum Receipt Requested)
Mr Steven D Landau
Manager Environmental Affairs
Denison Mines (USA) Corp
1050 Seventeenth Street Suite 950
Denver CO 80265
DearMr Landau
SUBJECT 2007 Fourth Quarter Discharge Minimization Technology (DMT) Performance Standard
Monitonng Report for the White Mesa Uranium Mill
Cell 2 Slimes Dram Momtormg Confirmatory Action Letter with Comments and
Recommendations
We received the subject fourth quarter report on February 28 2008 As you will recall effective March
17 2008 Part IF 2 of the Ground Water Discharge Permit requu-es this report be subnutted for Executive
Secretary approval However at this time the report need not be approved
Comments
We have reviewed the subject report and have the following comments
A) From the reported static water levels on the subject we observe that there is a general trend for the
water level to be nsmg in this slimes drain dunng 2007 We determined the average distance to
water level reported for the year 2007 to be 11 29 feet below the access pipe measuring point
conesponding to a depth in pipe elevation above the slimes drain bottom of 26 71 feet (38 00 -
11 29) This elevation of 26 71 feet will be used as the 2007 average elevation value m equation 1
found m Part I D 3 of the cunent ground water discharge permit This value will be incorporated
into the permit at the next modification
B) We observed that on four (4) inconsecutive months (July August October and November) of
2007 the cell 2 slimes dram pump was found to be not operating when the monthly inspectors
amved No information was provided m the report regarding timing of pump repairs or the
duration of pump breakdowns
168 North 1950 West PO Box 144850 Salt Lake City UT 84114 4850 phone [phone] fax [phone]
TDD [phone] www deq utali gov
Mr Steven D Landau
Apnl10 2008
Page 2
As required by the Part ID 3 b 1 of the pemut the Permittee shall at all times maintain the average
wastewater head m the slimes dram access pipe to be as low as reasonably achievable in each tailmgs
disposal cell m accordance with a DMT Monitonng Plan Compliance shall be achieved when the average
annual wastewater recovery elevation m the slimes drain access pipe determined pursuant to the cunently
approved DMT Monitoring Plan meets the conditions m Equation 1 We acknowledge that
compliance in this matter cannot be determined until after subnuttal of the 4'*' Quarter 2008 DMT
Momtonng Report
Recommendation
In light of the above findings DUSA may need to make changes to the DMT Monitoring Plan and make
other efforts to ensure future compliance with the requirement for declining annual average head in the
Cell 2 slimes drain
Confirmatory Action
However the elevations of the slimes drain need to be expressed m terms of elevation above mean sea
level Therefore the elevation of the water level measuring point on the slimes drain access pipe needs to
be surveyed to establish its elevation This elevation shall be certified m writing by a Utah Registered
Land Surveyor or Professional Engineer In a conversation with you and Mr David Rupp ofthis office on
April 4 2008 you agreed to supply the above survey information in writing to DRC by the next quarterly
DMT Performance Standard Monitonng Report due June 1 2008
If you disagree with the above commitment and compliance schedule please respond m writing within
three (3) working days of receipt of this letter
UTAH RADIATION CONTROL BOARD
Dane Finerfrock
Executive Secretary
LBM DAR dr
F \drupp\DUSA\GWDPr 1 ted doc \DMT\ 2007 4th Qtr 03 08 mtltr doc
State of Utah
Department of
Environmental Quality
Richard W Sprott
Executive Director
DIVISION OF RADIATION
CONTROL
Dane L Finerfrock
Director
JON M HUIMTSMAN JR
Governor
GARY HERBERT
Lieutenant Governor
MEMORANDUM
TO File DUSA Ground Water #137A
FROM Dave Rupp Environmental Engineer
DATE April 4 2008
SUBJECT Engineenng Module 75A 2007 Fourth Quarter Discharge Minimization Technology
(DMT) Performance Standard Monitonng Report for the White Mesa Uranium Mill dated
Feb 28 2008 Confirmatory Action Letter with Comments dated Apnl 4 2008
Critique on Cell 2 Slimes Drain Dewatenng
Attached is a two page spread sheet I created titled DUSA Cell 2 Slimes Drain Recovery Testmg updated
3 6 08 On It there is a graph of the static or approximately static water levels of the slimes drain recovery
testing since it began for Cell 2 Observe that the static water level shows a general trend to be nsing m
this slimes dram
The permit in effect at the Ume of this and earlier reports does not require approval of the reports
However future reports will requne approval per the cunent permit of March 17 2008 The 4'*' Quarter
2007 report is not approvable m that the slimes drain head m 2007 shows a steady increasing trend (see
attached chart) Consequently if this trend continues this should be so stated in DRC comment letters on
quarterly reports Report approval can only be attained by lowering the average annual head in the slimes
dram as per Part IF 11 of the permit That cannot be determined until the first quarterly report in March
2009
The overriding goal on this subject is the performance standard of lowering of the average annual
head This perfonnance goal for DUSA must not be lost m pointing out specific problem issues, such
as doing things to get better pumping efficiency There are many avenues for DUSA to attain the
ovemdmg goal We need not give them specific guidance or even emphasize improvement items m
inspecUons which could form an excuse for non compliance should DUSA only comply with specific
directives and not take responsibility for reducing the head m the slimes drain
The following is a sununary of some DRC pump efficiency related observations
1) On four (4) inconsecutive months (July August October and November) the pump was found to
be not operating when the DUSA monthly inspectors amved Only attending to the pump site
once per month seems problematic and could leave month long gaps m pump operation DUSA
inspectors should understand there is a recharge penod between active operating times and still
168 North 1950 West PO Box 144850 Salt Lake City UT 84114 4850 phone [phone] fax [phone]
TDD [phone] www deq utali gov
Memo on Module 75A
March 27 2008
Page 2
verify the pump is routinely tuming on as required They should be aware of monthly slimes drain
level measurement They should note when the pump is tumed off for monthly water level
recovery measurements For other times if they find the pump is not operating they should
document it and report to management Documentation of timely repair of a malfunctioning pump
could be an inspection item E g per the provisions of Part IV E (Duty to Provide Information) of
the ground water discharge permit we could get partial documentation by obtainmg the Weekly
Tailings Inspection Forms for the period of June 1 2007 through December 31 2007
2) The back page of the spread sheet shows more specific comments on the monthly readings These
were made by me and the comments in italics by the DUSA inspectors which measure the
monthly slimes drain water levels
3) The allowed time m the DMT Monitonng Plan for restonng pump operation is 15 days after
finding It not operating properly Fifteen days to obtain parts and do repairs seems reasonable
However multiple fifteen day repair periods separated only by short periods of operation seem
unreasonable There could be possible scenanos when a newly repaired pump nught mn for a few
hours or days then stop again Such could result m long periods of down time Under the existing
plan m the worst case operating with a chronically inactive pump system problem could continue
nearly indefinitely as long as there is continual decrease in the average annual slimes drain water
level (Pemut ID 3) However as the pemut requires continued decrease in the annual average
level eventually efforts beyond using only the cunent pumping setup to lower the level will
probably be needed
4) DUSA may have had a short stint of bad luck with this pump system or it simply should be
upgraded before future breakdowns continue to occur (like an old car) To remedy or avoid
chronic improper pump operation it seems the DMT plan may need to be adjusted (To eliminate
chronic breakdowns and eventually keep the water level lowenng the company may elect to
replace the entire pump system with new unused equipment designed for the particular
application as endorsed by the manufacturer) Other means are available to improve pumping
efficiency includmg but not limited to changes m the following
(a) Pump control systems i e replace the cunent clock timer with a water level based
controller
(b) Pump size or capacity i e use a smaller pump that runs for more hours per year etc
We could strain at the issue of chronic improper operation but eventually the company will have to come
to gnps with the reality that they must make improvements to attain the DMT standard of lowering the
water levels annually However we should encourage DUSA to make improvements but reminding them
of the end goal of meeting the annual average water level reduction requirement as defined m the cunent
penrnt dated March 17 2008
Attachment DUSA Cell 2 Slimes Drain Recovery Testing two page spread sheet
F\dr pp\DUSA\GWDPrel t ddoc \DMT\Memo 2007 4th Q rt Rpt 03 08 doc
State of Utah
Department of
Environmental Quality
Richard W Sprott
Executive Director
DIVISION OF RADIATION
CONTROL
Dane L Finerfrock
Director
JONM HUNTSMAN JR
Governor
GARY HERBERT
Lieutenant Governor
MEMORANDUM
TO File DUSA Ground Water #137A
FROM
DATE
Dave Rupp Environmental Engineer
February 7 2008
SUBJECT 2007 First Second and Third Quarter Discharge Minimization Technology (DMT)
Performance Standard Monitonng Reports for the White Mesa Uranium Mill
Notice of Enforcement Discretion Quarterly Reporting of Cell 2 Omission of
Monthly Slimes Dram Recovery Test Results and Readings
A letter subject as above dated Febmary 7 2008 discusses the details of omission of all of the
slimes dram test results and readings from the first three quarterly reports of 2007 Attached to
this memo is the email data supplied by DUSA via an email on October 31 2007
Also attached is a spread sheet titled DUSA Cell 2 Slimes Drain Recovery Testing Included on
this spread sheet is a graph of the end pomt of the static or approximately static water levels of the
slimes dram recovery testing for Cell 2
Note that the recovered slimes drain surface graph shows an overall increasing pattem at this time
The difference of barometnc pressure from the mill to the tailings cell should not be significant
Also at most only one reading of barometnc pressure was recorded per day on the submitted
data
The DUSA DMT monitonng plan requires the recovery test to be at least 90 hours This was not
always followed if the water level was found to be static for a penod of time
Attachments
1 Submitted data by DUS A (Oct 31 2007)
2 DUSA Cell 2 Slimes Drain Recovery Testing spread sheet
F \drupp\DUSA\GWDPrelated docs\DMT\Memo on 2007 1 st 3rd Quarter Rpts 02 08
168 North 1950 West PO Box 144850 Salt Lake City UT 84114 4850 phone [phone] fax [phone]
TDD [phone] www deq utaii g( v
w DRC-2012-0C1087
DENISO
MINES
Denison Mines (USA) Corp
105017th Street Suite 950
Denver CO 80265
USA
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
www denisonmines com
January 27 2012
VIA PDF AND FEDERAL EXPRESS
Mr Rusty Lundberg
Executive Secretary
Utah Division of Radiation Control
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
195 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City UT 84116 3097
Re Response to DRC Letter on Failure to Meet Affirmative Defense Requirements
Cell 2 Slimes Dram Recovery Elevation
Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit UGW370004
This letter responds to Utah Division of Radiation Control s ( DRC s ) December 20 2011 letter regarding
Denison Mines (USA) Corp s ( Denison s ) White Mesa Mill s (the Mill s) compliance with the Discharge
Minimization Technology ( DMT ) provisions in Utah Groundwater Discharge Permit UGW370004 (the
GWDP or the Permit) regarding Tailings Cell 2 Slimes Dram recovery elevation Reference is also
made to
• the DMT Report for the fourth quarter of 2011 submitted by Denison on February 25 2011 which
identified that the monthly slimes dram monitonng requirement senously interferes with the
pumping needed to reduce the slimes dram level
• a conference call with DRC on May 25 2011
• the Notice pursuant to Part I G 3 of the GWDP submitted by Denison on May 27 2011
• the Plan and Schedule submitted by Denison on June 17 2011 which identified the actions which
Denison considered would be sufficient to return the slimes dram system to compliance with the
GWDP and
• the Status Update Report submitted by Denison on August 1 2011 which confirmed that the
actions proposed in the June 17 2011 Plan and Schedule to be performed by Denison had been
completed
DRC s December 20 2011 letter identifies a number of requirements based on the assumption that the
actions completed in 2011 were not sufficient to reduce the Cell 2 slimes dram level and that the actions
identified in the letter and its accompanying Stipulated Consent Agreement would be necessary to bring
the Cell 2 slimes dram recovery system into compliance with the provisions of the GWDP
However as discussed with you on January 19 2012 because the Cell 2 slimes dram system is now in
compliance with the DMT provisions of the GWDP as a result of the actions completed dunng 2011 it is
our understanding that the requirements set out in DRCs December 20 2011 letter are no longer
required
Included with this letter is information demonstrating that the Cell 2 slimes dram has achieved compliance
with Part I D 3 of the Permit for 2011 Part I D 3(b)(3) of the Permit requires that annual slimes dram
C\Users\DFRYDENLUND\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet
Files\Content Outlook\M5MKKEM0\01 27 12 Itr to R Lundberg slimes dram Cell 2 compliance docx
Letter to Mr Rusty Lundberg
January 27 2012
Page 2
compliance shall be achieved when the average annual wastewater recovery elevation in the slimes dram
access pipe as determined in the currently approved DMT Plan meets the conditions in the formula (the
Formula ) spelled out in Part I D 3(b)(3) of the Permit
Attachment 1 contains the Cell 2 Head Measurement Test data forms for the months of January through
June 2011 when the measurement requirement was monthly and for the third and fourth quarters of
2011 after the GWDP was changed to require quarterly measurements Attachment 2 contains the Cell
2 slimes dram elevation plot for 2009 2010 and 2011 Attachment 3 contains a spreadsheet with
calculations demonstrating compliance with the formula in Part I D 3(b)(3) of the Permit for 2011
It should be noted that as a result of the additional volume of cut and fill added to the Cell 2 interim cover
dunng the re grading completed in July 2011 to minimize the accumulation of storm water the slimes
dram access pipe was extended 6 97 feet to maintain the monitoring point above the intenm cover This
extension is reflected in the entry for the Elevation of the Measunng Point and the Depth to Liquid in
Attachment 2 for the fourth quarter of 2011 (December 19 2011) The axis for Feet Below Top of
Standpipe (the y axis) in the Cell 2 slimes dram elevation time plot in Attachment 2 has also been
adjusted to be consistent with the new elevation of the Measurement Point at the top of the standpipe In
addition the standpipe elevation was resurveyed in 2011 which indicated that the elevation of the
measuring point of 5614 83 feet above mean sea level (fmsl) reported to date (pnor to the 6 97 foot
extension) was 3 07 feet higher than the 2011 survey result of 5611 76 fmsl (prior to the 6 97 foot
extension) The y axis has also been corrected to reflect this 2011 survey data These corrections of
axis have no effect on the resulting slimes dram elevation values listed in and used in the calculation in
Attachment 3 or plotted in Attachment 2 since those values are generated from the difference between
the elevation of the measurement point and the depth from the measurement pomt to the solution level
both of which have increased by the same value of 6 97 feet and both of which reflect the correct survey
results
Since the Cell 2 slimes dram system is now in compliance with Part I D 3(b)(3) of the Permit based on
the actions proposed and installed by Denison during 2011 we understand that future compliance will be
determined using the provisions of the GWDP and that a Stipulated Consent Agreement is not required
Further based on the 2011 results which indicate achievement of compliance through the actions
proposed and completed by Denison to date Denison believes that those measures will be sufficient to
maintain compliance in the future and that it is not necessary at this time to consider any of the further
actions discussed with DRC
As a final point in response to your December 20 2011 letter there appears to be a misunderstanding or
confusion regarding what commitments were made by Denison to DRC in the communications dunng
2011 During the May 25 2011 telephone call DRC and Denison discussed the factors that Denison
believes led to the non compliance situation specifically
• that the frequency of monitonng (monthly) interfered with the pumping time needed to reduce the
slimes dram level and
• that the formula used for determining compliance may be flawed
DRC and Denison also discussed a number of potential actions including reduction of the momtonng
frequency re grading of the intenm cover an engineering evaluation of the current pump installation of
one or more piezometers and other potential engineenng changes which DRC identified as optional
actions for Denison s evaluation DRC requested that Denison evaluate these options and submit a
formal notice under Part I G 3 of the Permit on or before May 27 2011 Based on these discussions
Denison submitted the Notice on May 27 2011 identifying the following proposed actions
DENISO
MINES
Letter to Mr Rusty Lundberg
January 27 2012
Page 3
• re grading the intenm fill on Cell 2 in order to reduce the potential for the accumulation of
stormwater on the surface of Cell 2 which can potentially infiltrate into Cell 2
• installing one or more piezometers into Cell 2 for the purposes of monitonng the water level in
Cell 2 in lieu of continued monitoring of ttie Cell 2 slimes dram access pipe and to submit a plan
and schedule to the Executive Secretary on or before June 17 2011 with respect thereto The
Plan and Schedule was to be subject to Executive Secretary approval and piezometer
installation was to occur after Executive Secretary approval
• performing an engmeenng evaluation of the current pump in the Cell 2 access pipe to determine if
any changes can be made to improve its efficiency and output and
• amending the Permit to adjust Part I D 3(b)(2) to reflect the ctianges in the monitoring ofthe Cell
2 water level resulting from the installation of the piezometer(s) and approved monitoring
procedure set out in the amended DMT Plan and to reduce the frequency of momtonng from
monthly to quarterly
Shortly thereafter when prepanng the plan and schedule Denison completed an engmeenng evaluation
which determined that the installation of piezometers would not be feasible or effective The engineenng
issues precluding the use of piezometers were discussed in Denison s June 17 2011 Plan and Schedule
Shortly thereafter on June 30 2011 DRC issued a draft revision of the GWDP for Denison s review
which reduced the frequency of momtonng the Cell 2 slimes dram from monthly to quarterly but which did
not contemplate any changes in the monitonng of the Cell 2 slimes dram water level resultmg from the
installation of any piezometers DRC published the amended Statement of Basis and GWDP containing
no requirements for additional piezometers on July 14 2011
Based on the foregoing Denison s understanding is that DRC did not require the installation of
piezometers nor did Denison commit to installing additional piezometers dunng the May 25 2011 call
Denison proposed to add one or more piezometers in its May 27 2011 Notice to be detailed in a Plan
and Schedule to be submitted by June 17 2011 In prepanng that Plan and Schedule Denison
concluded that the installation of additional piezometers would not be feasible and effective and
explained the reasons for that conclusion in its June 17 2011 submittal and in so doing revised its
proposal to exclude the installation of any additional piezometers The June 17 2011 Plan and Schedule
was subject to Executive Secretary approval On June 30 DRC issued a draft revision to the GWDP that
was consistent with continued monitonng at a reduced frequency in the existing slimes dram and which
did not address the installation of piezometers to be used for monitonng in lieu of the existing slimes
dram On August 1 2011 Denison provided DRC with a letter confirming that Denison had completed
the Items set out in the June 17 2011 Plan and Schedule and restating that no piezometers were
proposed to be installed Denison was not aware that DRC disagreed with Denison s revised proposal
until receipt of your December 20 2011 letter In any event given that the Mill is now in compliance with
Part I D 3(b)(3) ofthe Permit it would appear that no further actions are required at this time
Please contact me if our understanding is incorrect or if you have any questions or require any further
information
Yours very truly
DENIS N MIRES (USA) CORP
Dajfflbp Frtydenlund
VKe President Regulatory Affairs
DENISO
MINES
Letter to Mr Rusty Lundberg
January 27 2012
Page 4
cc Ron F Hochstein
Harold R Roberts
Jo Ann Tischler
David E Turk
Kathy A Weinel
DENISO
MINES
Letter to Mr Rusty Lundberg
January 27 2012
Page 5
ATTACHMENT 1
DENISO
MINES
MONTHLY HEAD MEASUREMENT TEST
January-11
Location
Shmes Cell # 2
Date
Sampler
1/21/2011
Tanner Holliday
Garnn Palmer Ryan Schierman
1600
1/17/2011 1/18/2011 1/19/2011 1/20/2011 1/21/2011
600
700 16 15 15 10 14 13 13 74 13 15
800 16 09 15 08 14 13 13 73 13 15
900 16 03 15 06 14 12 13 73 13 15
1000 15 98 15 04 14 05 13 72
1100 15 92 15 00 14 03 13 69
1200 15 86 14 95 14 00 13 67
1300 15 79 14 89 13 96 13 64
1400 15 73 14 84 13 92 13 59
1500 15 69 14 80 13 90 13 55
All measurements are m inches
Comments Report number is 13 15 forthe month of January
The tested started with a partialy recovered head because there was an unplanned
power loss to the tailings area over the weekend which allowed the head to recover
for a day and a half to two days before the monthly head recovery test was started
they contmue to have some problems with the power supply out on the tailings area
We may continue to see some problems with the slimes dram on Cell 2 until these
issues are resolved
MONTHLY HEAD MEASUREMENT TEST
Location
Shmes Cell # 2
Date
Sampler
2/28/2011
Tanner Holliday
Garnn Palmer
1600
2/21/2011 2/22/2011 2/23/2011 2/24/2011 2/25/2011 2/28/2011
600 10 42
700 14 7 12 73 10 42
800 14 59 12 7 118 11 82 10 42
900 14 47 12 63 11 79 112
1000 14 35 12 6 11 77 1118
1100 14 22 12 56 11 73 1118
1200 141 12 5 11 69 1115
1300 13 96 12 44 11 65 1111
1400 13 87 12 38 11 63 1103
1500 24 85 13 77 12 32 116 10 99
All Measurements are in inches
Comments Test got started late on th 21st and ran over the weekend The stable
readings were taken the following Monday morning on the 28th The number being
used as stable head for the report is 10 42 feet
MONTHLY HEAD MEASUREMENT TEST
Location
Shmes Cell # 2
Date
Sampler
3/18/2011
Tanner Holliday
Garnn Palmer
1600
3/14/2011 3/15/2011 3/16/2011 3/17/2011 3/18/2011
600
700 14 45 12 61 1176 11 32
800 24 75 14 31 12 56 1173 1131
900 23 25 14 19 12 53 11 71 1131
1000 22 31 14 05 12 50 11 69 11 31
1100 21 21 13 92 12 46 11 66
1200 20 68 13 82 12 42 1164
1300 19 78 13 72 12 36 11 62
1400 19 25 13 61 12 30 11 60
1500 18 76 13 53 12 22 11 52
All measurements are in inches
Comments The report number forthe month of March is 11 31
MONTHLY HEAD MEASUREMENT TEST
Location
Shmes Cell # 2
Date
Sampler
4/25/2011
Tanner Holliday
Garnn Palmer
1600
4/19/2011 4/20/2011 4/21/2011 4/22/2011 4/23/2011 4/24/2011 4/25/2011
600
700 24 48 15 40 13 69 12 94 1157
800 23 02 15 26'' ; X 13 68 12 91 1157
900 22 23 15 12 ( j 13 68 12 88 1157
1000 21 52 15 03 13 67 12 86
1100 20 80 14 95 1 13 61 12 82
1200 20 37 14 82 13 50 12 81
1300 19 73 14 77 13 40 12 78
1400 19 40 14 63 13 35 12 75
1500 19 01 14 61 13 29 12 72 11 65
Comments The report number for the month of April is 1157
The Head test was started on a Tuesday due to some mmor power Issues that needed to
be adressed on Monday the 18th
MONTHLY HEAD MEASUREMENT TEST
Location
Shmes Cell # 2
Date
Sampler
5/20/2011
Tanner Holliday
Garnn Palmer
1600
5/16/2011 5/17/2011 5/18/20X1 5/19/2011 5/20/2011
600
700 24 89 16 55 14 61 13 69 13 20
800 23 45 1644 14 55 13 66 1319
900 22 85 16 30 14 48 13 63 1318
1000 2191 16 20 14 41 13 61 13 17
1100 21 53 16 07 14 36 13 58 13 17
1200 2110 15 95 14 32 13 56 13 17
1300 20 52 15 85 14 27 13 54
1400 20 09 15 76 14 22 13 S2
1500 1975 15 64 1416 13 50
1317
Comments the report number Is 1317 for the month of May
MONTHLY HEAD MEASUREMENT TEST
Location Date 6/23/2011
Slimes Ceil # 2
Sampler tanner Holliday
Ryan Shierman
6/13/2011 6/14/2011 6/15/2011 6/16/2011 6/17/2011 6/18/2011 6/20/2011
600
700 24 90 17 16 15 28 1414 13 55 13 04 1218
800 23 90 17 05 15 24 14 10 13 49 12 18
900 23 26 16 95 15 20 1405 13 47 12 18
1000 22 49 16 84 15 17 1402 13 46
1100 2195 16 71 15 11 13 99 13 46
1200 2153 16 63 15 03 13 95 13 45
1300 2101 16 55 14 95 13 91 13 43
1400 20 51 16 40 14 87 13 86 13 40
1500 19 97 16 31 14 79 13 79 13 32
1600
12 18
Comments The report number is 1218 for the month of June 2011
MONTHLY HEAD MEASUREMENT TEST
Location
Shmes Cell #2
Date
Sampler
7/20/2011
Ryan Sheirman
Ryan Palmer
7/11/2011 7/12/2011 7/13/2011 7/14/2011 7/15/2011 7/19/2011
600
700 23 81 17 50 15 81 14 89 1412 12 59
800 23 24 17 43 15 75 14 85 14 09 12 59
900 22 91 17 27 15 73 14 82 14 07 12 59
1000 22 3 17 21 15 70 14 78 14 05
1100 219 17 16 15 64 14 73 1402
1200 2148 17 06 15 61 14 71 1400
1300 2115 1695 15 55 14 66 13 97
1400 20 82 16 90 15 49 14 63 13 95
1500 2041 16 84 15 43 14 59
1600
12 59
Comments Additional readings were taken on Saturday the 16th and Sunday the 17th
Saturday at 1800 hrs the level was 13 17 feet On Sunday at 1700 hours the level was 12 70
feet The report number will be 12 59 which was taken on the 19th
The shmes drain pipe and the LPS pipe on Cell 2 will have to be raised up to maintain
a reasonable amount of exposed pipe above ground elevation The dirt work is moving
forward and pipes will be extended with in the next week to ten days
QUARTERLY HEAD MEASUREMENT TEST
Location
Slimes Cell # 2
Date
Sampler
12/19/2011
Gamn Palmer
Tanner Holliday
1600
12/12/11 12/13/11 12/14/11 12/15/11 12/16/11 12/17/11 12/18/11 12/19/11
600
700 35 55 26 24 23 90 22 7 21 94 19 83
800 34 63 26 09 23 81 22 63 21 94 19 83
900 33 69 25 85 22 57 21 93 19 83
1000 32 78 25 61 23 72 22 55 21 91 21 30 20 31
1100 32 13 25 67 23 63 22 51 21 88
1200 31 89 25 43 23 59 22 48 21 84
1300 31 22 25 29 22 47 21 8
1400 30 74 25 12 23 52 22 44 21 77
1500 29 99 24 95 23 48 22 42 21 76
19 83
Comments
Two readings were missed on 12/14 because of monthly GW sampling event
Readings were taken Saturday the 17th and Sunday the 18th
The final number will be 19 83
The shmes dram was extended on Cell 2 when the cell s final cover was placed
The shmes two head measurement is now 45 which is up from 38 previously
Letter to Mr Rusty Lundberg
January 27 2012
Pages
ATTACHMENT 2
DENISO
MINES
O CT> CT>
oooooooooooo
OOOOOOOOOr>J<NrM rvlfN(N<NrM<NfMrM(N'^'^'^
O00»-IOrHOrHrHOP0r0r0
»-l<Nr0^LniOr««00OlrHT-lrH
OOO OOOOOOOOOT-HrHrH rHr-lrHrHrH»HTHrHTHOOO
OOOOOOOOOrvirMfM
ro ro CO THOOrHOTHOrHtHO
rofMrorocororocoro
14 00
16 00
c 18 00 re
tn
O
20 00
_o
01
CD
+j 01
|2! 22 00
24 00
rH fN ro
_l I L_
LO 00 CT> -J • • • L-
rM
rHrH^HrHrHrHrHrHrHOO OOOOOOOOOrMPM
fMrMrMfMfNfMrvjfMrM'^'^
THOOtHOTHOTHTHOrOrO
rorMrororororororo'^"^
rHrMrO^LniDP>.00a)THr-l
•Series2 Linear (Senes2)
Cell 2 Slimes Dram - 2009,2010 & 2011
Letter to Mr Rusty Lundberg
January 27 2012
Page 7
ATTACHMENT 3
DENISO
MINES
Cell 2 Shmes Drain 2011 Compliance Demonstration
2011 Test Closing
Date
Elevation of Measurement
Point (foisl) \
Reported largest
depth to sol n (ft)
SDRE Values
(Reported as fmsl)
1/21/2011 5611 76 13 15 5598 61
2/28/2011 5611 76 10.42 ? 5601 34
3/18/2011 \_ ; 561176 • LL31 5600 45
4/25/2011 ; 561176 If 57 5600 19
5/20/2011 . 561176 ^ - - ^ 13J7 5598 59
6/23/2011 561176 - 12 18 5599 58
V, ^"^7/19/2011 5611 76 ,.^.12 59 5599 17
12/19/2011 5618 73 ^ 19 83 v 5598 9
s 13 03 67192 97 ^ V.
\2% ^
^-...
2010 Test Closing
Date ^
Elevation of Measurement
Pomt (fmsl)
Reported largest
depth to sol n (ft)
SDRE Values
(Reported as fmsl)
1/15/2010 5611 76 13 96 ^.5597 8
2/21/2010 .. 561176 12 5 5599 26
3/15/2010 561176 11 04 5600 72
4/12/2010 561176 10 4 5601 36
5/19/2010 561176 10 43 5601 33
6/30/2010 5611 76 10 13 5601 63
8/2/2010 561176 10 74 5601 02
9/1/2010 . 561176 10 65 5601 11
9/24/2010 5611 76 11 5 560026
10/25/2010 - ---561176 12 35 ' - ^"--5599 41
11/23/2010 561176 10 81 5600 95
12/22/2010 56,11 76 1158 5600 18
11 34 67205 03
12
2009 Test Closing
Date
Elevation of Measurement
Point (fmsl)
Reported largest
depth to sol n (ft)
SDRE Values
(Reported as fmsl)^
1/30/2009 5611 76 11 25 5600 51
2/27/2009 , 561176 9 35 - 5602 41
3/28/2009 5611 76 8 84 5602 92
4/27/2009 " 561176 11 98 5599 78
5/20/2009 5611 76 10 28 560148
6/22/2009 - 561176 13 5598 76
7/30/2009 5611 76 13 5598 76
8/31/2009 , 561176 11 04 ' •-> 5600 72
9/28/2009 5611 76 11 46 , , 5600 3
10/30/2009 '561176 13 35 5598 41
11/23/2009 561176 12 49 ' ' 5599 27
12/14/2009 561176 13 12 5598 64
11 60 67201 96
12
lEy 3 Ny2 Ny3
lEy,+XEy
2+lEy3
Nyl +Ny2 +
Ny3
SEy+XEy
,+lEy2
Ny + Ny 1 +
Ny2
[lEy,+lEy2+XEy3]/[Ny
,+Ny2+Ny3]
[EEy+lEyl+lEyZ]/
[Ny+Ny,+Ny2] ~
67 192 97 67 205 03 67 201 96 '67 201 96 12 ' 12 12 12 201 608 95 36 201 599 96 36 , 5 600 25 5 600 00
IE '2011 ( aslEy)
N. 2011 ( seasNy)
IE 2010 ( seasSEy 1)
N 2010 ( seasNy 1)
IE 2009 ( se as lEy 2)
N 2009 ( se as Ny 2)
Cell 2 Shmes Dram 2011 Compliance Demonstration
2008 Test Closing
Date
Elevation of Measurement
Point (fmsl)
Reported largest
^ depth to sol n (ft)
SDRE Values
(Reported as fiiisl)_
1/25/2008 561176 10 9 5600 86
11/24/2008 > " 561176 11 5 5600 26
11201 12
2
IE 2008 ( se as ZEy 3)
2008 ( se as Ny 3)
DENISO
MINES
• DRC-201J-0G/U8
August 1 2011
Demson Mines (USA) Corp
1050 17th street, Suite 950
Denver CO 80265
USA
Tel [phone]
Fax 303 389^125
www denisonmines com
VIA PDF AND FEDERAL EXPRESS
Mr Rusty Lundberg
Executive Secretary
Utah Division of Radiation Control
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
195 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City UT 84116 3097
Re White Mesa Mill Cell 2 Slimes Dram Compliance - Confirmation of Completed
Steps from June 17,2011 Plan Letter
This letter provides confirmation of the actions committed to during discussions m Denison
Mines (USA) Corp s ( Demson s ) conference call with Utah Division of Radiation Control
( DRC ) on May 25 2011 and in a in June 17 2011 Status Update letter regarding Cell 2
Annual Shmes Drain Compliance (the June Status Update or the Status Update Letter ) at
White Mesa Mill The actions are addressed in this letter in the same order as they were
discussed in the Status Update Letter
Re gradmg of Interim Fill on Cell 2
The Status Update Letter committed that Denison would re grade the interim fill on Cell 2 on or
before August 1 2011 in order to reduce the potential for the accumulation of stormwater on the
surface of Cell 2 which can potentially infiltrate mto Cell 2 Denison believes that the reduction
of infiltration by removal of low areas and filling of potential pooling spots will have a positive
effect on the shmes drain level
Denison completed filling and regrading of Cell 2 on July 30 2011 The regrade required
62 000 cubic yards of cut and fill consisting of alluvial material and/or rock Drawings of the
cell regrading plan are provided in Attachment 1 Photographs of the completed regrading are
provided in Attachment 2
N \Gell 2\08 01 11 Itr to R lundberg Cell 2 comp[etion\08 01 11 Itr to R Lundberg Cell 2 modifications docx
Letter to Mr Rusty Lunduw g
August 1 2011
Page 2
Installation of Piezometers
As discussed in the Status Update Letter Denison has performed an engineering evaluation of
issues related to the feasibility of installation and use of piezometers in Cell 2 for the above
purpose Based upon this further evaluation Denison does not believe that it is feasible to install
and operate peizometers that would provide representative and dependable measure ofthe shmes
drain level for the following reasons
For the reasons stated in the letter including
1 The likelihood that artesian effects will create piezometer levels inconsistent with slimes
dram levels
2 The fact that no piezometer or collection of piezometers could represent cell wide
conditions and
3 The high risk of continual plugging
Denison has determined that piezometer installation is not feasible in Cell 2 and as stated in the
Status Update Letter has not installed piezometers
Engineering Evaluation of Pump in Cell 2
Denison performed an engineering evaluation of the current pump in the Cell 2 access pipe to
determine if any changes can be made to improve its efficiency and output and has made
mechanical changes to the pump configuration and adjustments to the pump operational cycle as
discussed below
As discussed in the Jime Status Letter the sensor settings (which trigger pump startup) were
adjusted from the former 0 feet to 4 feet setting to the current setting of 0 feet to 2 feet As a
result the pump rate has been slowed sufficiently to allow the pump to cycle on more frequently
for a longer time at a narrower range of solution levels in effect performing like a smaller
pump as suggested by DRC This mode of operation has been maintaining as lower slimes drain
level based on the increased frequency of pumping
Amendment of the Groundwater Discharge Permit for Reduced Monitormg Frequency
Denison has received DRC s June 30 2011 Draft Statement of Basis Memorandum and Draft
amended Groimdwater Discharge permit As agreed upon in a telephone conversation between
Denison and DRC during the week of July 25 2011 Denison will provide comments or
proposed markups to the draft documents by August 17 2011
Please contact me if you have any questions or require any further information
DENISO
MINES
Letter to Mr Rusty Lunoowig
August 1 2011
Page 3
>
Yours very tmly
DENISON MINES (USA) CORP
Jo Ann Tischler {
Director Compliance and Permitting ^ r
{
cc David C Frydenlund {
RonF Hochstein it
Harold R Roberts ^ \
David E Turk
Kathy A Weinel
DENISO
MINES
Letter to Mr Rusty Lunduw g
August 1 2011
Page 4
ATTACHMENT 1
DENISO
MINES
460
Steve Hancock Cut/Fill Locations Report
14424 E Wagontrail PL CELL_2_REGRADING
Aurora C) 80015 2158 CelL2_Regrading_Plan
303 570 6126 Existing vs 5615 80 Surface
June 25 2011 11 30 AM
60
40
20
00
20 -
40
60
80
240 480
Steve Hancock
14424 E Wagontrail PL
Aurora C) 80015 2158
303 570 6126
Cut/Fill Locations Report
CELL_2_REGRADING
Ce!l_2_Regrading_Plan
Existing vs 5615 80_Surface
June 25 2011 11 26 AM
60
40
20
00
20
40
60
80
XOI 4p
X00 91
x()0 8*
460
Steve Hancock
14424 E Wagontrail PL
Aurora C) 80015 2158
303 570 6126
Cut/Fill Locations Report
CELL_2_REGRADING
CelL2_Regrading_Plan
Existing vs 5615 80_Surface
June 25 2011 11 25 AM
56J9 Sfiia
5622 0
5620 0
5618 0
5616 0
5614 0
5612 0
5610 0
^5619
561 3
540
Steve Hancock
14424 E Wagontrail PL
Aurora C) 80015 2158
303 570 6126
Surface Contours Report
CELL_2_REGRADING
Cell_2_Regrading_Plan
Existing
June 25 2011 11 34 AM
Steve Hancock
Individual Cut/Fill Report
CELL_2_REGRADING
Drawing Cell 2 Regrading Plan
14424 E Wagontrail PL
Aurora 0) 80015 2158
303 570 6126
June 25 2011
11 27 AM
Area of Interest
Cut/Fill Zone
Area
(sa ft)
Average
Depth
(ft)
Maximum
Depth
(ft)
Bank
Volume
(cu vd)
Shrink
Swell
(/)
Adjusted
Volume
(cu vd)
Center of Mass
N E
Cell_2_Regrading_Area 2_w/road
Cut Zone 1
MISC Cuts (5)
700763 40
176 71
1 22
0 24
6 04
1 26
31596 77
1 56
0 00
0 00
31596 77
1 56
2217359 48
0 00
10164326 70
0 00
CeII_2_Regrading_Area 2_w/road Total Cut 700940 11 1 22 6 04 31598 33 0 00 31598 33 0 00 0 00
Fill Zone 1
Fill Zone 2
MISC Fills (26)
786807 35
28290 64
561 19
2 13
0 31
0 10
5 78
1 36
0 93
62129 43
320 98
2 17
0 00
0 00
0 00
62129 43
320 98
2 17
2217729 61
2216788 98
0 00
10163849 05
10164023 93
0 00
CelL2_Regrading_Area 2_w/road Total Fill 815659 18 2 07 5 78 62452 58 0 00 62452 58 0 00 '^00
Cell_2_Regrading_Area 2_w/road Import/Export import 30854 25 Import 30854 25
Cell_2_Regrading_Plan
Cell_2_Regrading_Area 2_w/road Total Cut 700940 11 1 22 6 04 31598 33 0 00 31598 33 0 00 0 00
CelL2_Regrading_Plan Total Cut 70094011 1 22 6 04 31598 33 0 00 31598 33 0 00 0 00
CeII_2_Regrading_Area 2_w/road Total Fill 815659 18 2 07 5 78 62452 58 0 00 62452 58 0 00 0 00
CelL2_Regrading_Plan Total Fill 815659 18 2 07 5 78 62452 58 0 00 62452 58 0 00 0 00
Cell_2_Regrading_Plan Import/Export Import 30854 25 Import 30854 25
Page 1
Letter to Mr Rusty Lunduw g
August 1 2011
Page 5
ATTACHMENT 2
DENISOl
MINES
Cell 2 - Looking Northeast
Cell 2 - Looking Southeast #1
Cell 2 - Looking East #2
Cell 2 - Looking East #1
Denison Mines (USA) Corp
1050 17th street Suite 950
Denver CO 80265
USA
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
www denisonmines com
June 17 2011
VIA PDF AND FEDERAL EXPRESS
Mr Rusty Lundberg
Executive Secretary
Utah Division of Radiation Control
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
195 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City UT 84116 3097
Re White Mesa Mill Cell 2 Shmes Dram Comphance -Status Update and Plan and
Schedule
This letter provides an update on the status of actions committed to m Denison Mines (USA)
Corp s ( Denison s ) May 27 2011 Notice regarding Cell 2 Aimual Slimes Dram Compliance
(the May 27 2011 Notice or the Notice ) at White Mesa Mill and discussions durmg our
conference call with Utah Division of Radiation Control ( DRC ) on May 25 2011
Re-gradmg of Interim Fill on Cell 2
The Notice committed that Denison would re grade the interim fill on Cell 2 on or before August
1 2011 m order to reduce the potential for the accumulation of stormwater on the surface of Cell
2 which can potentially infiltrate mto Cell 2
Denison has completed an updated survey of the Cell 2 surface which has identified low areas
that could be regraded Denison has prepared a plan for regrading the surface The completed
plan will require 50 000 cubic yards of cut and fill consisting of alluvial material and/or rock to
level out low areas on the current surface Denison believes that the removal of low areas and
filling of potential pooling spots will have a positive effect on the shmes drain level by reducmg
infiltration
As proposed m the Notice Denison expects to compete the proposed regrading by August 1
2011
N \Cell 2\06 17 11 Plan and sched slimes dram dewater\06 17 11 ltr to R Lundberg Cell 2 plan and sched docx
Letter to Mr Rusty Lundberg
June 17 2011
Page 2
Installation of Piezometers
Denison proposed in the Notice that we would install one or more piezometers into Cell 2 for the
purposes of monitormg the water level m Cell 2 in lieu of continued monitonng of the Cell 2
slimes dram access pipe and that Denison would submit a plan and schedule to the Executive
Secretary on or before June 17 2011 for instalhng such piezometer(s)
Denison has performed an engineering evaluation of issues related to the feasibility of
installation and use of piezometers in Cell 2 for the above purpose Based upon this further
evaluation Demson does not believe that it is feasible to install and operate peizometers that
would provide representative and dependable measure of the slimes dram level for the following
reasons
1 Any piezometer properly installed would produce a coimection or conduit between
solutions under high pressure at depth and the surface of the cell The conduit would
permit the rise of solution up the casing m an artesian type effect Solution levels in the
casmg would likely be consistently higher than and not representative of the actual
slimes drain level
2 The cell contents are highly heterogeneous in the nature physical properties and
elevation of materials in various sections of the cell That is the cell contams areas of
slimes adjacent to areas of sands and buried debris differing m
a Porosity
b Particle size
c Density
d Viscosity
Each of the above properties locally affects the moisture content and mobility of
solutions As a result any peizometer would be affected by and represent only the
localized conditions m a small area adjacent to its installation location No piezometer or
number of peizometers would be representative of conditions cell wide or in the shmes
dram pump system
3 Due to the heavy fine solids content any piezometer mstalled at shmes depth would be
very likely to fill with solids from the bottom of the casing upward in a short period
rendering it either
a Incapable of any measurement or
b Yielding falsely high measurement above a bottom column of solids
For the above reasons Denison has determined that piezometer installation is not feasible in Cell
2
OENISONh^^
MINES
Letter to Mr Rusty Lundberg
June 17 2011
Page 3
Engineering Evaluation of Pump in Cell 2
The Notice proposed that Denison would perform an engineering evaluation of the current pump
m the Cell 2 access pipe to determme if any changes can be made to improve its efficiency and
output m light of the changes described above Denison has completed an engineenng
evaluation of potential changes to the pump and made changes to the pump operation as
described below to address DRC s preference that pumping occur more consistently at a lower
flow rate over a narrower range of solution levels
The shmes currently installed dram pump is a Marinemate submersible pump Model 50TM2 45
The titanium alloy materials of constmction are required to withstand the corrosive conditions m
the cell slimes dram solution environment Denison has previously used a number of other
smaller pumps of other matenals of constmction m the slimes dram with a resultmg rapid
corrosion and bumout of the pump The currently installed titanium alloy model is the smallest
(lowest flow rate) size pump available from any manufacmrer in the appropnate materials of
constmction
In order to address DRC s concems Denison has installed a reducmg neck to reduce the pump
discharge from 2 inches to 1 inch this increasing the discharge head on the pump and reducing
the discharge flow rate The sensor settings (which trigger pump startup) have been adjusted
from the former 0 feet to 4 feet setting to the cunent setting of 0 feet to 2 feet As a result the
pump rate has been slowed sufficiently to allow the pump to cycle on for a longer time at a
nanower range of solution levels m effect performing like a smaller pump as suggested by
DRC
Amendment of the Groundwater Discharge Permit for Reduced Monitormg Frequency
The Notice proposed that Denison would amend the Permit to adjust Part I D 3(b)(2) to reflect
the changes in the monitonng of the Cell 2 water level resulting from the installation of the
piezometer(s) and approved monitoring procedure set out in the amended DMT Plan and to
reduce the frequency of monitonng from monthly to quarterly As described above Demson
does not believe installation of piezometers to be feasible However as discussed with DRC
reduction m the number of samplmg penods will reduce the number of days the pump is off to
allow stabilization of levels to meet the data quality criteria in the DMT Plan that is will allow
the pump to mn for more days per year As indicated in the Notice Denison believes a reduction
in the monitoring frequency under the cunent pumping and momtormg regime will likely be
sufficient to result in compliance with the Formula over time
Following DRC s approval of the plan included in this update letter Denison would like to
discuss with DRC a timetable for amendment of the permit to address the agreed upon changes
DENISO
MINES
Letter to Mr Rusty Lundberg
June 17 2011
Page 4
Evaluation of Compliance
It should be recognized that the types of engineering modifications proposed above will produce
changes slowly and may not indicate significant measurable improvement m the first the
months they are m place In addition the modifications have been or are being mstalled dunng
the mid point of the 2011 operating year (June and July 2011) that is half the operating year has
already passed Although each modification is expected to have a positive effect on slimes
dewatenng rate reducing the level over time it is possible that the measurable improvement will
not occur soon enough or to be reflected m the DMT shmes dram reduction Formula
As discussed m our Notice of May 27 2011 it is evident from a review of the data collected to
date as mdicated in the figure m the Notice that the most recent monthly result May 2011 is
lower than the last result reported for December 2010 despite the variability from month to
month
It should be emphasized that the overall trend in the data smce the begmnmg of 2009 continues
to be downward and is expected that the engineering modifications will continue or increase the
downward trend This trend also existed from January 2009 through December 2010 although
not as pronounced over that shorter period of time The presence of the downward trend in the
same period in which the DMT slimes drain Formula is not satisfied suggests that the Formula
may not be adequately capturing this trend The failure of the Formula to adequately track this
downward trend may result from the fact that the four years of data required as inputs into the
Formula will not be available until the end of 2012 or from some other feamre of the Formula
that may need to be addressed
The Cell 2 water level will continue to be monitored m accordance with the cunent Permit
conditions and after amended the amended Permit conditions through the remainder of 2011
The monitoring results for 2011 will be compared to the results for previous years through
application of the Formula and the comparison will be submitted to the Executive Secretary in
the DMT Report for the 4'*" quarter of 2011 which must be submitted on or before March 1
2012 Trending data will continue to be plotted and submitted m the DMT reports
Denison s proposal for evaluation of compliance after the 2011 results are collected and
analyzed is detailed m the Notice of May 27 2011
Please contact me if you have any questions or require any further information
Yours very tmly
DENISON ^
MINES
Letter to Mr Rusty Lundberg
June 17 2011
Page 5
DENISON MINES (USA) CORP
Jo Ann Tischler
Director Comphance and Penmttmg
cc David C Frydenlund
Ron F Hochstein
Harold R Roberts
David E Turk
Kathy A Weinel
MINES
DENISO
MINES
Denison Mines (USA) Corp
105017th street, Suite 950
Denver CO 80265
USA
f
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
www denisonmines com
May 27 2011
VIA PDF AND FEDERAL EXPRESS
Mr Rusty Lundberg
Executive Secretary
Utah Division of Radiation Control
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
195 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City UT 84116 3097
E 7" ^^^^
Re State of Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit No UGW370004 White Mesa
Uramum Mill - Notice Pursuant to Part I G 3 of the Permit -Cell 2 Annual Shmes Dram
Compliance
Please take notice pursuant to Part IG 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 ) R317 6 6 16(C)(1) that Denison Mines (USA) Corp as operator ofthe Mill and holder
of the Permit failed to meet the standards in Part ID 3 (b)(3) of the Permit as descnbed in more
detail below
1 Facts and Background Information
a) Part ID 3(b)(1) of the Permit requires that the Permittee shall at all times maintain the
average wastewater recovery head in the slimes drain access pipe to be as low as
reasonably achievable (ALARA) in each tailmgs disposal cell m accordance with the
currently approved Discharge Minimization Technology Momtonng Plan ( DMT
Plan )
b) Part ID 3(b)(2) of the Permit requires that the Permittee shall conduct a monthly
shmes drain recovery test at the Cell 2 shmes drain that meets the following minimum
requirements
(i) Includes a duration of at least 90 hours as measured from the time that pumping
ceases and
(ll) Achieves a stable water level at the end of the test as measured by three
consecutive hourly water level depth measurements with no change in water
level as measured to the nearest 0 01 foot
c) Part I D 3(b)(3) of the Permit requires that aimual slimes drain compliance shall be
achieved when the average annual wastewater recovery elevation in the shmes drain
access pipe as determined in the cunently approved DMT Plan meets the conditions
in the formula (the Formula ) spelled out in Part ID 3(b)(3) of the Permit That Part
also states that failure to satisfy the conditions in the Formula shall constimte DMT
failure and non compliance with the Permit
d) Section 3 l(b)(viii) of the DMT Plan further states that if at any time the most recent
average annual head in the Cell 2 shmes drain is found to have increased above the
average head for the previous calendar year the Licensee will comply with the
requirements of Part IG 3 of the Permit includmg the requirement to provide
notification to the Executive Secretary orally within 24 hours followed by wntten
notification
e) On Febmary 25 2011 Denison submitted its White Mesa Uramum Mill DMT
Performance Standards Monitoring Report and Cell 4A BAT Performance Standards
Monitoring Report for the 4^^ Quarter of 2010 (the DMT Report ) in which it
concluded that on the application of the Formula annual shmes drain compliance has
not been achieved for 2010 in accordance with Part ID 3 of the Permit Denison first
came to this realization while finalizing the DMT Report for submittal to the Executive
Secretary
f) Denison also noted in the DMT Report that for the reasons detailed in the Report
Denison believes that the momtonng requirements of Part ID 3(b)(2) of the Permit
senously interfere with Denison s ability to comply with Parts ID 3(b)(1) and
I D 3(b)(3) and should be amended Denison noted that the required monitonng
prevented pumping of the shmes drain in Cell 2 for approximately 77 days m 2010 or
approximately 20% of the year Denison also noted that the overall elevation measured
fi'om the first data point in 2009 to the last data point in 2010 indicated an overall
reduction in elevation over the two year penod notwithstanding the fact that
precipitation m 2010 was significantly higher than m 2009 Demson recommended
that the monitonng requirement in the Permit be modified to allow the slimes drain
pump sufficient mnning time to dewater the cell and suggested as an example that the
monitonng requirement could be reduced fi*om monthly to quarterly
DENISO MINES
g) This matter was discussed dunng a conference call held on May 25 2011 between
Denison and State of Utah Division of Radiation Control ( DRC ) staff In particular
the parties discussed the impact the current monitonng requirements have on pumping
the possible need to amend the Permit to reduce the fi-equency of monitonng the
appropnateness of the Formula and whether or not any amendments to the Formula
may be required and a number of measures that could be taken in the field to improve
the Cell 2 dewatenng efforts DRC staff advised that notwithstanding these issues and
the potential need to amend the Permit Denison may be considered in violation of the
Permit at this time Denison and DRC staff agreed that Denison would provide this
Notice to the Executive Secretary setting out Demson s plan and schedule for
addressing this matter This Notice is also intended to more formally provide the
information contemplated by the 5 day wntten notice requirement under Part I G 3 of
the Permit relating to this matter
2 Actions Taken
At this time Denison is continuing to pump and monitor the Cell 2 shmes drain in the same
manner it has since pnor to the beginning of 2009
Included with this Notice is a figure that shows the monthly Cell 2 slimes drain elevations in
Feet Below Top of Standpipe fi-om January 2009 through May 2011 It is evident from a review
ofthe figure that the most recent monthly result May 2011 is lower than the last result reported
for December 2010 although there continues to be vanability from month to month
Further the overall trend in the data since the beginmng of 2009 continues to be downward
which suggests that the Formula may not be adequately capmnng this trend This trend also
existed from January 2009 through December 2010 although not as pronounced over that shorter
penod of time The failure of the Formula to adequately track this downward trend may result
from the fact that the four years of data required as inputs into the Formula will not be available
until the end of 2012 or from some other feamre of the Formula that may need to be addressed
3 Actions That Will be Taken to Prevent a Reoccurrence of this Incident
Denison believes that a reduction in the monitonng frequency under the cunent pumping and
momtonng regime will likely be sufficient to result in compliance with the Formula over time
although possibly not by the end of 2011 given that half the year has already passed Therefore
Denison proposes that the following additional actions, over and above a reduction in the
frequency of monitonng also be taken to provide more assurance that a reoccunence of this
incident will not occur
DENISO MINES
a) Denison will re grade the intenm fill on Cell 2 in order to reduce the potential for the
accumulation of stormwater on the surface of Cell 2 which can potentially infiltrate
into Cell 2 This re grading will be completed on or before August 1 2011 which is
expected to be pnor to the start of the late summer Monsoon season
b) Denison will install one or more piezometers into Cell 2 for the purposes of monitonng
the water level in Cell 2 in lieu of continued monitonng of the Cell 2 shmes drain
access pipe This will allow for the pump that is located in the access pipe to operate
without intermption from monitonng activities Demson will submit a plan and
schedule to the Executive Secretary on or before June 17 2011 that will address the
plan and schedule for installing such piezometer(s) That Plan and Schedule will
contemplate that the cunent DMT Plan be amended with the Executive Secretary s
approval to reflect the manner of sampling the piezometer(s) pnor to commencement
of monitonng The piezometer(s) will be installed within 30 days after Executive
Secretary approval of the Plan and Schedule
c) Denison will perform an engineenng evaluation of the cunent pump in the Cell 2
access pipe to determine if any changes can be made to improve its efficiency and
output m light of the changes descnbed above The results of that evaluation will be
descnbed in the Plan and Schedule refened to in paragraph b) above and
d) The Permit will be amended to adjust Part ID 3(b)(2) to reflect the changes in the
monitonng of the Cell 2 water level resulting from the installation of the piezometer(s)
and approved monitonng procedure set out in the amended DMT Plan and to reduce
the frequency of monitonng from monthly to quarterly
The Cell 2 water level will continue to be monitored in accordance with the cunent Permit
conditions and after amended the amended Permit conditions through the remainder of 2011
The monitonng results for 2011 will be compared to the results for previous years through
application of the Formula and the companson will be submitted to the Executive Secretary in
the DMT Report for the 4* quarter of 2011 which must be submitted on or before March 1
2012
Ifthe conditions in the Formula are satisfied then Denison will continue its dewatenng activities
in 2012 and subsequent years in accordance with the amended Permit conditions and will
continue to compare the results annually as contemplated by the Formula
If the conditions in the Formula are not satisfied for 2011 but it appears from a review of the
results that the measures descnbed in paragraphs 3 a) through d) above have been working to
improve dewatenng activities after August 2011 and if implemented for a full year would appear
DENISO
MINES
to be likely to be successful in meeting the conditions in the Formula then the Executive
Secretary will determine whether to exercise his discretion to allow the pumping and monitonng
to continue in the same manner through the remainder of 2012 after which the results for 2012
will be compared to the results for previous years using the Formula
Ifthe conditions in the Formula are not satisfied for 2011 and the Executive Secretary does not
exercise his discretion as contemplated by the previous paragraph then either
e) The Executive Secretary and Denison will review the Formula to determine if it is
appropnate to determine if the pumping is maintaining the average wastewater level in
Cell 2 as low as reasonably achievable ( ALARA ) as contemplated by Part ID
3(b)(1) of the Permit and if not agree on appropnate modifications to the Permit or
f) The Executive Secretary and Denison will consider further field activities that may be
performed in order to achieve the ALARA goal contemplated by Part ID 3(b)(1) of the
Permit and a Plan and Schedule for implementing any such activities
and the Permit will be amended to reflect the foregoing
4 Affirmative Defense
Denison believes that the failure to meet the conditions of the Formula was caused by the
momtonng requirements of the Permit which prevented the ability of the pump from being
active for 20% of the time This amount of pump downtime was not contemplated by the Permit
This is almost twice the downtime that would result from the pump being off for the 90 hours per
month contemplated by Part ID 3(b)(2) of the Permit As a result Denison believes that its
inability to be able to comply with the Permit conditions was caused by the Permit itself and not
by its own actions or inactions However if any potential violation were to be identified
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
Oral notification was not given to the UDEQ Duty Officer within 24 hours of the discovery
(which was made at the time the DMT Report was being prepared for submittal to the Executive
Secretary on Febmary 25 2011) However wntten notice was given to UDEQ within 24 hours
of the discovery through the submittal of the DMT Report Further this Notice is being given by
Denison withm five days of the May 25 2011 conference call dunng which DRC staff advised
that they thought this matter may constimte a violation of the Permit Although the oral
notification was not given Denison submits that the wntten notifications given to the Executive
DENISO
MINES
Secretary in these particular circumstances constimte substantial compliance with the notification
requirements of Part I G 3 of the Permit and Section 3 l(b)(vm) of the DMT Plan Denison has
noted however, that in fumre circumstances such as these it will also provide the 24 hour oral
notice and will ensure that the wntten notification is given in a stand alone notice within 5 days
of the oral notification
b) Failure was not Intentional or Caused bv the Permittee s Negligence
The failure to satisfy the conditions in the Formula was not intentional or caused by Denison s
negligence either in action or in failure to act Denison continued to perform the pumping and
monitonng that is contemplated by the Permit and the DMT Plan and that it had been performing
over the last several years Denison believes that the excessive pump downtime caused by the
frequency of monitonng has prevented Denison from meeting the conditions in the Formula
Further given the vanability of the water levels it has been difficult to predict annual results
pnor to year end based on monthly results or even cumulative month to date results at any time
dunng the year It was therefore not possible to predict with any certainty dunng the year
whether or not compliance would be achieved for the year
c) The Permittee has Taken Adequate Measures to Meet Permit Conditions
Denison believes that the proposed measures descnbed in Section 3 above will be adequate to
meet Permit conditions m the fumre
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 of a
pollutant mto waters of the state Denison has not caused pollution which constimtes a menace
to public health and welfare or is harmful to wildlife fish or aquatic life or impairs domestic
agnculmral industnal 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
Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions or require any
DENISO MINES J9ii
further information
^rydenlund
President Regulatory Affairs and Counsel
cc RonF Hochstein
Harold R Roberts
Jo Arm S Tischler
David E Turk
Kathy A Weinel
DENISO MINES
Jikk
Q.
O. •o c re
O O
ro
O o rM
00
rM
o o
fN
O O fN
O"
ro
cn o o rM
o o rsl
o" ro
cn o o rM
ro
on o o rsl
cn o o
O" ro
cn o o
fM
cn o o rvi \ o ro
<n o o rM o
rM
O rM
CO r\i
O
fM
ro
ro
o rM
o
ro
o rM
ro
LO
o rsl
O" ro
O
rg
ro
O rM
ro
00
o rg
O^ ro
o
rsl
rH
ro
O rj
O" ro
o rM
ro
rM
rH rH
o rM o rM
00
rsl
o rM
ro
ro
o rM
O
ro
O
rvi
ro
LO
o
fN
o ro
o
Q. O
? O
0) 00
4-> Q) 0)
16
•Series2 Linear (Senes2)
Cell 2 Slimes Dram - 2009,2010 & 2011
'^C-^ol|' €02-2^14-
•2(ftl-0010
DENISO
MINES
January 10 2011
VIA E MAIL AND OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
Mr Rusty Lundberg
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
195 North 1950 West
PO Box 144810
Salt Lake City UT 84114 4820
I c-1
\
Peceiveci
JAN 2011
Di»/i^ion of
Radiation Control
rj
Denison Mines (USA) cori
1050 17th Street Suite 950
Denver CO 80265
USA
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
www denisonmines com
Re State of Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit ( GWDP ) No UGW370004
Transmittal of Revised Documents Addressing White Mesa Uranium Mill New Cell 4B and Response
to Division of Radiation Control ( DRC) Letter of January 6 2011 Regarding Comprehensive
Comments on Proposed Revised Plans
DearMr Lundberg
This letter transmits Denison Mines (USA) Corps proposed revisions to the Tailings Management System
and Discharge Minimization Technology Monitonng ( DMT) Plan and the Best Available Technology
Operations and Maintenance ( BAT O&M ) Plan for the White Mesa Mill which are currently pending UDEO
approval This letter also responds to DRCs letter of January 6 2011 requesting additional changes to
previously submitted versions of these documents Per DRC s letter we understand that the Contingency
Plan will be addressed separately and changes will not be tied to approval for use of Cell 4B or the New
Decontamination Pad
DRC received the October 11 2010 letter requesting changes to previously submitted versions of the DMT
Plan BAT O&M Plan and Contingency Plan To address those comments and other changes necessary for
operation of Cell 4B Denison submitted on November 12 2010 redline and clean copy revisions of those
documents entitled DMT Plan Revision 11 BAT O&M Plan Revision 2 0 and Contingency Plan Revision 4 0
DRC reviewed those submittals and requested additional changes to the DMT and BAT O&M Plans in the
letter of January 6 2011 Denison has accepted all the changes submitted on November 12 2010 to create
new black line copies of the DMT and BAT O&M Plans and has prepared the additional changes in
response to DRCs January 6 2011 letter as redlined markups entitled DMT Plan 11 1 and BAT O&M Plan
Revision 2 1 These revisions have been provided respectively as Attachments 1 and 2 to this letter
For ease of review both of the revised documents have also been provided as clean file versions with all
changes accepted Denison requests that UDEO review and approve the versions attached to this letter
which consolidate into one set of documents all changes submitted by Denison since September 2008 for
which Denison is awaiting DRC approval
N \Cell 4B\January 2011 Submittals and Revisions for Cell 4B\01 10 11 Transmittal to DRC Plan Revisions for Cell 4B doc
Letter to Mr Rwsfy Lundberg
January 12 2011
Page 2
We have also provided below specific responses fo each reqyesf in UDEQ s January 6 2011 letter The
secfions and numbenng of the remainder of this leffer follow fhe DRC January 6 2011 leffer Each UDEQ
request is shown in italics below followed fay Denison s response
DEQ Comments and Responses
The Continaencv Plan (11/2010 Revision DUSA 4)
Please be aware that in order to expedite the Cell 4B review process that DRC review of the Contingency
Plan will be addressed under separate coven proceed independently and not be tied to the use ofthe NDP
nor Cell 4B The following is noted for future reference
A In the subject November 12 2010 letter^ DUSA provides proposed red Ime and clean versions
ofthe Contingency Plan version noted which include aspects regarding Cell 4B
B The third paragraph as well as Section 2 a 1 of a September2 2010 DUSA letter discusses
contingency plan comments in our May 10 2010 letter
Demson Response No response required \
The DMT Plan (11/2010 Revision DUSA 11
1 We acknowledge a section of paragraph 3 1 eiD has been changed appropriately to read that
The depth to water from the top of any ofthe three (3) observation ports to the standing water
shall be no less than 6 2 feef It appears that incorporation of this item into an approved DMT
Plan would complete the issues regarding the NDP with respect to DMT Plan adjustments
Demson Response No response required
2 The DMT Plan (as well as the O&M Plan) incorporating necessary items for Cell 4B must be approved
prior to DRC authorization of use for Cell4B Regarding freeboard requirements the Plans proposed by
the subject DUSA November 12 2010 letter make the assumption that Cell 4B is currently authorized for
use and it is not necessary to establish a freeboard for Cell 4 A However this is incorrect This
approach DUSA has taken appears to necessitate one ofthe following
a That the last action prior to authonzing use of Cell 4B must be the approval of the DMT Plan (and
the O&M Plan) or
b To obtain approval ofthe DMT and O&M Plans now DUSA change the plans to establish the
freeboard for Cell 4A to be one ofthe following either
(1) The fixed freeboard elevation for Cell 4A established by the DRC freeboard
vanance letter of November 20 2008 or
(2) Change the current freeboard determination verbiage proposed in these Plans be more
robust This would include that the freeboard for Cell 4A or Cell 4B as may be applicable would
be established by the rigorous freeboard calculation method outlined in former proposed Plans
but would be wntten such that if Cell 4B becomes approved that the freeboard determination
method would no longer be needed for or apply to Cell 4A
Please provide DRC your decision to us in this regard together with any and all necessary
corresponding changes to the DMT Plan
DENISO
MINES
Letter to Mr Rusty Lundberg
January 12 2011
Page 3
Denison Response Demson has chosen option (a ) afaove and will request the approval ofthe DMT Plan and
the Q&M Plan as the last action pnor to the UDEQ authonzation for the use of Cell 4B As such the changes
requested regarding the reintroduction of Freefaoard limits for Cell 4A are noi necessary
3 The following changes in DMT Plan forms related to tailings beach elevations are needed due to the
need to measure beach elevations in tailings Cells 4A or 4B as applicable (per paragraph 2 above)
This issue was brought to your attention eadier in our letter dated October 11 2010 The freeboard for
these ponds is determined from the use of such (see paragraph 6 3 and Appendix F ofthe DMT Plan)
a On page 28 of 49 in Appendix A of the submitted clean copy of the Plan
(1) The heading numbered as one near the left margin on that page must state Pond and Beach
elevations the following eadier proposed DMT Plan versions also contained this provision
(a) 12/08 Revision Denison 7
(b) 03/09 Revision Denison 8 and
(c) 3/(10 Revision Denison 9
(2) In the corresponding page of the submitted red line version (i e page 33 of 56) item number
one contains sections for Cell 4A and Cell 48 An item (d) stating Elevation of Beach Area with
the Highest Elevation (monthly) must be added into the sections on this page for each of
these cells as applicable with paragraph 2 above (Earlier proposed DMT Plan versions
contain this item (d) for Cell 4A in the versions given in paragraph 3 a above)
b Section 31dvii paragraph C should be labeled as paragraph B The title of this paragraph should be
Cell 4A or 46 Seac^ Elevation as needed and applicable with paragraph 2 above The body of that
paragraph should mdicate that the beach elevation survey will be in Cell 4 A or Cell 4B as applicable
(If Cell 4B becomes approved for use it then will be is no longer necessary to establish freeboard
elevation for Cell 4A)
Denison Response
3 a (1) The heading has been changed as requested
3 a (2) The requested text Elevation of Beach Area with the Highest Elevation (monthly) has been
added to Cell 4B only As previously stated Denison is requesting UDEQ approval of the DMT Plan as
the last action pnor to the use of CeW 4B and as such the requested change to the Cell 4A weekly
inspection is not necessary
3 b See response to 3 a (2) above
4 Please conect miscellaneous errors noted at the following locations oh the subject submitted redline
DMT Plan copy
a The third paragraph of page 2 and in paragraph a) below it the deletion and relocation ofa
sentence is erroneous
b Last paragraph of page 3 the elevations listed for the lowest points on the flexible membrane liners
for Cells 4 A and 4B conflict with the elevations listed in Appendix A (page 33 ofthe redline copy) for
Cells 4A and 48
c On page 11 heading III (used for the Roberts Pond) should be a heading IV
DENISO
MINES Mi
Leffer fo Mr Rusfy Lundberg
January 12 2011
Page 4
d In Section 6 3 the fifth paragraph the first number m the parenthetical phase appears it should be
40 rather than 45 72
e On page 28 ofthe clean copy corresponding to p 33 ofthe red line copy for Cell 4A the FML
bottom elevation line needs to be rightijustified
f On page 33 paragraph number 2 the statement Pump Timer set at 15 mm on needs to be
deleted
g On page 36 the asterisk footnote shown refers to an elevation which appears to apply only to Cell
4A The footnote needs to be adjusted somehow include the elevation that applies to Cell 4B as
well
Denison Response These changes have been made in fhe affached DMT Plan Revision 11 1
The Cell 4 A & 4B O&M Plan. 11/2010 Revision Denison 2 0. ofthe submitted red line copy
I Figure 6B does not follow the same logic as Figure 6A I e the lowest FML elevation above the
sump level is not 1 5-feet above the sump bottom (for the 18 mch diameter collection pipe) as in
Figure 6A Please explain and justify this difference
II On page 11 in two separate paragraphs numbered I and 2 the second and the last sentence
respectively contain a parenthetical phase that must be deleted or adjusted as it is incorrect
III On page 14 in the third sentence the parenthetical phrase must be deleted or adjusted as it is
incorrect
IV Also on page 14 the second to last sentence from the bottom ofthe page beginnmg with Each
pump IS equipped with refers to distances of 2 25 feet and 9 inches These distances appear to
not be applicable for the Cell 4B sump and respecting Figure 6B Please revise this sentence and
or figure to be correct for Cell 4B as well
V On page 15 the last sentence of the first paragraph on that page must specify what Figure it refers
to
VI Page 17 the third paragraph states Condition 10 3 states that however, cunent License
Condition 10 3 does not state the verbiage quoted after that sentence Please adjust this paragraph
with the proper references and verbiage as applicable
VU Beginning on page 17 rewrite the section ofthe O&M Plan titled Cell 4 A Solution Freeboard
Calculation mcluding the title of that section This will need to be done according to DUSA s
application ofthe paragraph numbered 2 under the DMT Plan comment section ofthis letter
Vlll Please correct miscellaneous errors noted at the following locations on the subject red lined copy of
the Ceil 4A and 4B BAT O&M Plan
a On page 6 paragraph 2 add a sentence which descnbes that the non woven geotextile
material is also overlain at the surface by a woven geotextile fabric which is ballasted laterally
by sandbags on each side ofthe backbone gravel berm
b The above item also must be added to paragraph e 2 on page 3 and 4
c On page 6 paragraph e 3 also add a sentence which descnbes that the non woven geotextile
material is also overlain at the surface by a woven geotextile fabric which is ballasted by
sandbags
d The above item also must be added to paragraph e 3 on page 4
e Page 20 entry 11 on the Attachments list needs to be updated and the sentence ended with
DMT Monitoring Plan
Denison Response
DENISON
MINES
Oii
Letter to Mr Rusty Lundberg
January 12 2011
Page 5
I Figure 6B is correct The lowest FML above the sump level is 2 06 feet for Cell 4B
II The phrase has been deleted from both paragraphs as requested
lli The phrase has been deleted as requested
IV The text has been corrected to reflect the actual conditions in Cell 4B as shown in Figure 6B
which IS correct
V Figure 5 was referenced in the previous version and no correction is required
VI The con'ect verbiage has been added
VII See response to 3 a (2) above
VIII Items a through e have been corrected or amended as requested
Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions or require any further mfonnation
Yours very truly
DGNISON MINGS (USA) CORP
<lo Ann Tischler
Director Compliance and Permitting
cc David C Frydenlund
Harold R Roberts
David E Turk
K Weinel
Central files
DENISO
MINES