DRC-2009-008524 - 0901a06880af53fd

trtlu-rn-
EoEa
"TzEE' action letter I
RE: insPecton modt
Er{ruEt
r-EEr-
Steve D Landau- -
inuioron*ental M.anger
i-^*"n Mines (USA) CorP
ioio rTtn sr srE eso
Denver CO 80265
I Complete hems 1, 2, and 3' Also complete- [", i ir n"stricted Delivery is desired'
r Frint vour name and address on the reverse
so thit we can return the card to you'..
r lit""n t'ni" ""ta
to the back of the mailpiece'
E Agent
Addressee
D€ltuery
D/dt
or on the front if sPace Permits';-" ;; address differcnt from item 1?El Yes
trNo
E Express Mail
E Retum Receiptfor Merdlandise
E c.o.D.
Rg'inspecton module 75E' action letter / TR rdeliveryaddressbelow:
Steve D Landau
Envioronmental Manger
Denison Mines (USA) CorP
1050 17th sT sTE 950
DenverCO 80265
3. ServiceType
(C"ttin"O U"ir
E Begistercd
E lnsured Mall
4. Restricned DeliverY? (ExtaFee)E Yes
2. ArticleNumbe, ?EE? t]?lU UECIll ?11U ?13qfrarsf"rrc*seruicel&0 ,
PSFonn3811,reuruary2oo4DomesticRetumReceipt102595.02+,1.1340
State of Utah
JON M. HUNTSMAN. JR
Govenxtr
GARY HERBERT
Lieutenant Governor
a
Department of
Environmental Quali
Richard W. Sprott
Exerutit,c Direcktr
DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
Dane L. Finerfrock
Direttor a
May 28,2009
CERTIFIED MAIL
(Return Receipt Requested)
Mr. Steven Landau
Environmental Manager
Denison Mines (USA) Corporation
1050 17'h Street, Suite 950
Denver, CO 80265
Dear Mr. Landau:
Subject:April28, 2009 DUSA Letter: White Mesa Uranium Mill-2008 Engineering Inspection
Module 75E; March 26,20f]r9 DRC Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL);
February 5,2009 DUSA Letter: Response to DRC Findings and Request for Information
Pertaining to the DRC Inspection of the White Mesa Mill on November 5, 2008;
Confirmatory Action Letter
We received your submittal of April 28,2009 on the above subject. DRC review of this submittal revealed
that this response was incomplete, with respect to our specific request for an updated map of the tanks. We
have the following cornments:
Roberts Pond:
Your April 28,2009 submittal shows the term "Sedimentation Pond" on page 25 of the cunent DMT
Monitoring Planinspection form has been changed to "Roberts Pond." This form change is approved, and
the revised form should now be used in the monthly inspections.
Mill Site Chemical Reaeent Tanks:
The April 28, 2009 submittal provided an updated map of the tank areas. The map included tank
capacities, but not all the specific reagents stored. The March 26,2009 DRC Confirrnatory Action Letter
requested that DUSA, "Include . . . reagents stored."
Some of the tanks indicate a single specific reagent is being stored in them. However, reagents in all tanks
are not shown. Usually, for the tanks containing mixtures of more than one reagent in solution, the tanks
are not labeled as to their content. Such are usually labeled on the submitted map as a function of the
stored solution, e.g. "EMF Adjustment Tanks," or result of reactions, e.g. "Sludge Tank."
In a letter dated February 5, 2009, DUSA earlier indicated that, "the tank inventory, marking and mapping
project will be completed by March 31,2009, at which time a current map including the capacity and
reagent information will be submitted to the Division." DUSA has not completely supplied this
information.
168 North I950 west. Salt lake City, UT
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144850. Salt Lake City. tlT 84114-4850
Telephone (801 ) 536-4250' Fax [phone]' T.D.D. (801 ) 536-4414
r+,rt'rr. rfu q . uta h. Rt ty
Printed on 100%, recycled paper
809020tru:a[d cop 60-82-9'IVJ AEI poy'l 80046-1002 IIA(l\suoIl3edsulwSnC\ddrup\:d
JUC 'Surqsnu suuloql:r3
JP:UVO
AJBIaJJeS e^rlnJexa-o]
{co{reurd ''I euBC
CUVOS AJJ'IVNO USJVAE HVIO
'OgZn-gEg (tOg) lu ddng 'rprq tcutuoc asueld'ruelr srql uo slueuruoc ro
suorlsenb ,(uu enuq no,(;1 'JeDel sql;o ldreca: go s,(ep-gy urr{lr/y\ uorluuuoJur e^oqB aql eprrord o1 peer8e
nof '6667 'Zl KeINuo CUC go ddn6 pl^BO qtmr euoqdalet ur^ ,(q pleq eruereJuor luerrre3roJue m uI
'uotlurrrJoJul sql Sumroqs deu pesr^eJ e eprnord VS1C
lsenbar a7y1 'parsll eq ol poeu asaqJ 'sluenlqsuo3 rofuru 'luJe^as q1^\ suorlnlos ploq ,(uu s1u4 eruo5
's{uu1 eql 1B ur peJols Sureq sluanlltsuoo IBJIITTaqJ rofuur aqt;o uorlducsap ro sarueu aql apmord VS1C
luql Surlsenbel sr CUC 'Je^e/hoH 'pelsenber Suteq lou eJu suorlnlos peJols snolJe^ ;o se8eluacred pcruraqc
.ro suorleJluocuoc lueSuar leql no( poruJoJur ddng 'rp1 uorlusJe^uoJ eql uI 'no,( qlrm uorlerrrJoJur IeJruaqc
Jo uorssruo sqt pessnrslp JUCI go ddng pl^Bq 'rl4tr '6002 'Zl [elN uo uotlusre,ruoc euoqdelal u uI
7a?e4
6002'€I ,(BIAtr
Jelle-I uorl3v,fuoluurguoJ f,uc
nupuE-I ue^els'JIAI
rL
TTJIr,?
EIT
TTrr
Etf,EE]
Erlr!E
rrE]E]rr
RE O4I28I2OO9DUSA LTR/
DRC lnsPec of 11/0512008
Confi rmation Action Ltr:fi4
AfiN STEVEN LANDAU ENV MANAGER
DENTSON MTNES (USA) CORP
10s0 17TH ST STE 950
DENVER CO 80265
I Complete items 1, 2, and B. Also completeitem 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.r Print your name and address on the reverseso that we can return the card to you.r Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,_- ^- rh^ frant if enaaa ^^,6i.^
DeliveryI ZulJs
of
RE O4I28/2OO9DUSA LTR/
DRC lnspec of 11/05/2008
Confirmation Action Ltr - TR
2. Article Number (Copy from service labet
4ITN STEVEN LANDAU ENV MANAGERD-EN|SON MTNES (USA) CORP
1O5O 17TH ST STE 950
DENVER CO 80265
E Agent
tr
ls delivery address different from item 1?E Yes
E r.tolf YES, enter delivery address below:
4. Restricted Delivery? Ertn Fee)El Yes
?0u? o?lu EnEE ?31n 5h1?
|. nService Tvoe
ff@nttiiu^,,r E Express Mair/EIRegistered E Return Receipt for Merchandise
El lnsured Mait tr C.O.D.
or PO Box No. \"..
eity:Si;i,;Zi'P;i'
PS Form 381 1, luty tsss Domestic Return Receipt 102se5-00-M-0e5v
State
JON M. HUNTSMAN, JR.
Govemor
GARY HERBERT
Lieutenant Governor
IDepartment of
Environmental Quality
Richard W. Sprott
Executive Direcutr
DTVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
Dane L. Finerfrock
Director
FILL\
fit *t' ){L."/
March 26,2009
CERTIFIED MAIL
(Return Receipt Requested)
Mr. Steven Landau
Environmental Manager
Denison Mines (USA) Corporation
1050 17th Street, Suite 950
Denver, CO 80265
Dear Mr. Landau:
February 5,2009 DUSA Letter: Response to DRC Findings and Request for
Information Pertaining to the DRC Inspection of the White Mesa Mill on
November 5, 2008; December 17,2008 DRC Letter: 2008 Engineering
Inspection Module 75E; DRC Confirmatory Action Letter
We received your written response on the above subject dated February 5,2009. DRC review
shows that this response was incomplete and that commitments were made to provide additional
information at a later date. The purpose of this letter is to confirm the DUSA commitments and
deadlines listed below:
Roberts Pond:
In our previous letter of December 17,2008, a section made comments regarding the Roberts
Pond. It requested that the term "sedimentation Pond" in paragraph numbered 3, on page 25 of
the current DMT Monitoring Plan inspection form be changed to "Roberts Pond" in order to
eliminate confusion. This item was omitted in DUSA's February 5,2009letter. We request
DUSA provide the revised form.
Mill Site Chemical Reaeent Spill Containment:
DRC requested, "An updated current map of all reagent tank areas showing the current tanks.
Include tank capacities and reagents stored." You stated, "the Mill implemented an inventory
update of the Mill site tank information and associated mapping during the first week of
December, 2008 . . . It is anticipated that the tank inventory, marking and mapping project will be
completed by March 31,2009, at which time a current map including the capacity and reagent
information will be submitted to the Division."
168 North 1950 West. Salt [.ake City, UT
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144850'Salt l,ake City, UT 841l4-4850
Telephone [phone]' Fax [phone]' T.D.D. [phone]
www.deq.utah.gov
Printed on 100% recycled paper
Mr. Steven Landau
DRC Confirmatory Action Letter
March 26,2009
Page 2
In a telephone conversation with David Rupp of DRC on March 25,2009, you agreed to provide
the information requested by this letter on or before April 30,2009. If you have any questions or
comments on this letter, please contact David Rupp at [phone].
DAR:LBM: dr
Cc: Thomas Rushing, DRC
F:\drupp\DUSA\Inspections\DMT 2007-9U008 Mod 75E CAL 3-26-09.doc
File: IUC02.06.08
Dane L. Findrfrock
Executive Secretary
IDepartment of
Environmental Quality
William J. Sinclair
Actittg Exec utive Di rec tu r
DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
Dane L. Finerfrock
Diredu'
State of Utah
JON M. HUNTSMAN, JR
Goverrutr
GARY HERBERT
Lieutenanl Governor
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM I
FrlEruco2o6o8 m 71ru/t
/u-
David P"pp %z***)
March 25,2009
SUBJECT: Engineering Module 75E Inspection
DRC Comment Letter dated March 3,2009
DUSA Response Letter of February 5,2009
DRC Inspection Letter of December 17, 2008
There were four items mentioned in DRC's original inspection letter of December 17 ,2009 listed below.
These were responded to by DUSA in a letter of February 5, 2009 . Our recent confirmatory action letter of
March 25,2009 cornrnents on DUSA's response. This MEMO summarizes the thought behind the recent
comment letter.
The original inspection items were:L Courtesy information provided to DUSA on maximum tailings elevation in Cell 3.2. Requested changes to the DMT reporting forms regarding the Roberts Pond.3. Request for detailed information on specific tanks, plumbing layout of the same,
justification of why the containment meets the requirements of the Permit Part I.D.3(g) and
an updated map of al the reagent tank areas showing the current tanks. Include tank
capacities and reagents stored in the respective tanks.
4. Piping to the barge in the s.w. corner of Cell 4A appears to be installed off the splash pad.
O&M Plan under Cell Ops, p. 3 requires the piping to be on the pad. DRC requested
explanation and justification why such is compliant with the approved O&M Plan, or
alternatively provide a plan and schedule for how DUSA will return to compliance with
the O&M Plan requirements.
Item l: No response required from DUSA. This was provided for information only.
Item 2: DRC requested changes to the DMT reporting forms regarding the Roberts Pond. DUSA did not
respond to this item so it is being requested again.
Item 3: Regards Mill Site Chemical Reagent Spill Containment. DRC requested detailed information on
three specific tanks, plumbing layout of the same, justification of why the containment volume meets the
requirements of the Permit Part I.D.3(g) and an updated map of all the reagent tank areas showing the
current tanks. The submittal is to include tank capacities and reagents stored in the respective tanks. These
items are discussed individually in the outline below.
a. The DUSA letter of February 5, 2009 provided the following information for specific tanks
168 Norrh 1950 Wesr . Salt L:ke City. UT
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144850 . Salt [,ake Ciry, UT 841 14-4850
Telephone [phone] . Fax [phone] . T.D.D. (801) 536-,t414
www.deq.utah.gov
hinted on I00% recycled paper
MEMO Engineering Inspection 7 5E
March 25,2009
Page 2
b.
c.
summarized in the table below:
Tank Name Capacitv in
Gallons
Dimensions Contents
SX Raffinate 122,350 35',4X t7',H SX raffinate waste, containing H2SO4
and non-recovered compounds
SX Feed 54,400 2l'ox21'H U and V pregnant liquors and process
impurities
Organic
Scavenser
4.110 t}'ax 7'H Scavenged organic solutions from SX
containing amines, alcohols & kerosene.
TOTAL 180.860
DUSA provided a plumbing layout for the above tanks containment area (enclosure 1). It depicted
the piping is not connected in the storage area.
The DUSA response regarding containment capacity requirements referred to a CFR regulation,
discussed in more detail below, that the containment was large enough to contain the largest
container above (122,350 gallon tank vs. 148,840 gallons containment). Also, that "fulfilling the
SPCC requirements is appropriate and sufficient to 'capture and contain all volumes of reagent(s)
that mieht be released.' More specifically, the volume of the material that might be released at any
one time is the individual tank failure scenario contemplated by EPA's rules(s)."
The above seems reasonable given the facts that:
(l). The Ground Water Discharge Permit, Part I.D.3(g) states, "Mill Site Chemical Reagent
Storage - for all chemical reagents stored at existing storage facilities and held for use in
the milling process, the Permittee shall provide secondary containment to capture and
contain all volumes of reagent(s) that might be released at any individual storage area. . ."
(2). At a recently walled containment area, east of the SX building, the dimensions were
measured to be about 3.17' high X94.5' long X 66.5' wide, which yields an estimated
capacity ofabout 148,840 gallons.
(3). DUSA provided reference to 40CFR112.8(c)(2), pertaining to Spill Prevention, Control
and Countermeasure Plan (SPCCP) requirements (enclosure 2). This regulation pertains to
requirements for SPCCP for onshore [and] facilities. These requirements state, 'provide a
secondary means of containment for the entire capacity of the largest single container . . ."
(4). The drawing provided in reference b. above did not show that tank discharge piping
connected within the storage area. Therefore, it is unlikely that a piping break would drain
more than one tank.
DUSA's responded regarding our request for an updated current map of all reagent tank areas,
showing the current tanks, including tank capacities and reagents stored. DUSA stated, "the Mill
implemented an inventory update of the Mill site tank information and associated mapping during
the first week of December, 2008. . . It is anticipated that the tank inventory, marking and mapping
project will be completed by March 31,2009, at which time a current map including the capacity
and reagent information will be submitted to the Division."
d.
MEMO Engineering Inspection 75E
March 25,2009
Page 3
The schedule mentioned above seems reasonable, if.the information previously requested by DRC
is received by the negotiated date at the bottom of the letter.
IfeXn.{r The piping to the barge in the s.w. corner of Cell 4,A' appeared to be installed off the splash pad.
After the inspection, DUSA installed a barge ramp up the Cell side slope on the splash pad. DUSA sent
photos of this via their email dated February 5,2009. These photos are enclosed (Encl. 3). These photos
appear to be as stated, thus resolving the issue.
Conclusion: The above verbiage on these items explain why our confirmatory action letter of March25,
2009 is limited to two items, i.e. items 2 and.3 above. Mr. Steven Landau of DUSA committed to respond
to the letter by April 30,20c9.
Thomas Rushing, DRC
1. SX Feed Tank Containment Area Piping Layout
2. Excerpts from 40CFR112
3. Three photographs of the southwest comer of Cell4A
F:\drupp\DUSA\2008 MEMO 75E Cmts03-09
File: I1.1C02.06.08
I
\
E\.s\s
E'o.a
E
E
0,
ozv
oF
0,hoco,
(!u
olPIolzl
o(!
3Eo,(u
LL
Lob0f-ydc>l!.EFu,tt
o
(oJ
oog'a
E
(oo
co
E
,g(o
coU
Jc
TE
Eoo
xql
Fll
EI
=lbd
lJ.l
o
Environmenlol Proleclion Agency
engine on a public vessel) and any dis-
charges of such oil accumulated in the
bilges of a vessel discharged in compli-
ance with MARPOL 73/78, Annex I, as
provided in 33 CFR part l5l, subpart A;
(b) Other discharges of oil permitted
under MARPOL 73178, Annex I, as pro-
vided in 33 CFR part l5l, subpart A; and
(c) Any discharge of oil explicitly
permitted by the Administrator in con-
nection with research, demonstration
projects, or studies relating to the pre
vention, control, or abatement ol oil
pollution.
[61 FR 7421, Feb. 28, 1996]
$ 110.6 Notice.
Any person in charge of a vessel or of
an onshore or offshore facility shall, as
soon as he or she has knowledge of any
discharge of oil from such vessel or fa-
cility in violation of section 311(b)(3) ofthe Act, immediately notify the Na-
tional Response Center (NRC) (800-424-
8802; in the Washington, DC metropoli-
tan area, 202-426-2675). If direct report-
ing to the NRC is not practicable, re-
ports may be made to the Coast Guard
or EPA predesignated On-Scene Coordi-
nator (OSC) for the geographic area
where the discharge occurs. All such
reports shall be promptly relayed to
the NRC. If it is not possible to notify
the NRC or the predesignated OCS im-
mediately, reports may be made imme-diately to the nearest Coast Guardunit, provided that the person in
charge of the vessel or onshore or off
shore facility notifies the NRC as soon
as possible. The reports shall be madein accordancc with such procedures as
the Secretary of Transportation may
prescribe. The procedures for such no-
tice are set forth in U.S. Coast Guard
regulations, 33 CFR part 153, subpart B
and in the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan, 40 CFR part 300, subpart E.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2050-0046)
[52 FR 10719, Apr. 2, 1987. Redesignated and
anrended at 6l FR 7421. Feb.28, 1996: 6l FR
14032, Mar. 29, 19961
Pt. I 12
PART I I2_OIL POTLUTION
PREVENTION
Sec.
Subport A-Applicobility, Definitions, ond
Generol Requirements For All Focilities
ond All lypes of Oils
ll2.l General applicability.
I12.2 DeFinitions.
I12.3 Requirement to prepare and imple-
ment a Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure Plan.
112.4 Amendment of Spill Prevention, Con-trol, and Countermeasure Plan by Re-
gional Administrator.
112.5 Amendment of Spill Prevention, Con-trol, and Countermeasure Plan by owners
or operators.
I 12.6 [Reserved]
112.7 General requirements for Spill Preven-tion, Control, and Countermeasure
Plans.
Subporl B-Requirements fol Pelroleum
Oils ond Non-Pelroleum Oils, Except
Animol Fols ond Oils ond Greoses,ond Fish ond Morine Mommol Oils;ond Vegetoble Oils (lncluding Oils
lrom Seeds, Nuls, Fruils, ond Kernels)
112.8 Spill Prevention, Control, and Coun-
termeasure Plan requirements for on-
shore facilities (excluding production fa-
cilities).
112.9 Spill Prevention, Control, and Coun-
termeasure Plan requirements for on-
shore oil production facilities.
l12.l0 Spill Prevention, Control, and Coun-
termeasure Plan requirements for on-
shore oil drilling and workover facilities.ll2.l1 Spill Prevention, Control, and Coun
termeasure Plan requirements for off-shore oil drilling, production, or
workover facilities.
Subporl C-Requiremenls for Animol Fots
ond Oils ond Greoses, ond Fish ond
Morine Mommol Oils; ond fot Vege-
toble Oils, lncluding Oils from Seeds,
Nuts, Fruils ond Kernels
ll2.12 Spill Prevention, Control, and Coun-
termeasure Plan requirements for on-
shore facilities (excludlng production fa
cilities).
112.13 Spill Prevention, Control, and Coun
termeasure Plan requirements for on-
shore oil production facilities.
ll2.l4 Spill Prevention, Control. and Coun-
termeasure Plan requirements for on
shore oil drilling and workover facilities.
\
\\
19
s r r2.r
l12.15 Spill Prevention, Control, and Coun-
termeasure Plan requirements for off-shore oil drilling, production, or
workover facilities.
Subport D-Response Requiremenls
112.20 Facility response plans.
112.21 Facility response training and drills/
exercises.
APPENDIX A To PART II2-MEMoRANDUM oF
UNDERSTANDINC BETWEEN THE SECRETARY
OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE ADMINIS-
TRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC-
TION ACENCY
APPENDIX B To PART II2-MEMORANDUM oF
UNDERSTANDING AMoNG THE SECRETARY
OF THE INTERIOR, SECRE'|ARY OF TRANS-
PoRTATIoN, AND ADMINISTRAToR oF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PRoTEcTIoN AGENCY
APPEND]X C TO PART IIz-SUBSTANTIAL HARM
CRITERIA
APPENDIX D To PART II2-DETERMINATIoN oF
A WoRST CASE DISCHARGE PLANNING VoL-
UME
APPENDIX E 1.o PART II2-DETERMINATIoN
AND EVALUATION OF REQUIRED RESPONSE
RESoURCES FoR FACILITY RESPoNSE
PLANS
APPENDIX F To PART II2-FACILITY_SPECIFIC
RESPoNSE PLAN
AurHoRITy: 33 U.S.C. lZ51 et seq.i 33 U.S.C.
2720: E.O. 12777 (October 18, l99l), 3 CFR, l99l
Comp.. p. 351.
SoURCE: 38 FR 34165, Dec. ll, 1973, unless
otherwise noted.
EDIToRIAL NorE: Nomenclature changes topart ll2 appear at 65 FR 40798. June 30, 2000.
Subport A-Applicobility, Defini-
tions, ond Generol Require-
ments for All Focilities ond All
Types of Oils
souRCE: 67 FR 47140, Julv 17. 2002, unless
otherwise noted.
$ 112.1 General applicability,
(a)(l) This part establishes proce-
dures, methods, equipment, and other
requirements to prevent the dischargeof oil from non-transportation-related
onshore and offshore facilities into orupon the navigable waters of the
United States or adjoining shorelines,
or into or upon the waters of the con-
tiguous zone, or in connection with ac-tivities under the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act or the Deepwater Port
Act of 1974, or that may affect natural
resources belonging to, appertaining
40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-04 Edition)
to, or under the exclusive management
authority of the United States (includ-ing resources under the Magnuson
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act).
(Z) As used in this part, words in thesingular also include the plural and
words in the masculine gender also in-
clude the feminine and vice versa. as
the case may require.(b) Except as provided in paragraph
(d) of this section, this part applies to
any owner or operator of a non-trans-portation-related onshore or offshorefacility engaged in drilling, producing,
gathering, storing, processing, refining,transferring, distributing, using, or
consuming oil and oil products, which
due to its location, could reasonably be
expected to discharge oil in quantitiesthat may be harmful, as described inpart ll0 of this chapter, into or uponthe navigable waters of the United
States or adjoining shorelines, or intoor upon the waters of the contiguous
zone, or in connection with activitiesunder the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act or the Deepwater Port Actof 1974, or that may affect natural re-
sources belonging to, appertaining to,or under the exclusive management au-thority of the United States (including
resources under the Magnuson Fishery
Conservation and Management Act)that has oil in:(l) Any aboveground container;
(2) Any completely buried tank as de-
fined in S 112.2;(3) Any container that is used for
standby storage, for seasonal storage,or for temporary storage, or not other-
wise "permanently closed" as defined in
9112.2:
(4) Any "bunkered tank" or "partially
buried tank" as defined in $ 112.2, or any
container in a vault, each of which is
considered an aboveground storage
container for purposes of this part.(c) As provided in section 313 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA), departments,
agencies, and instrumentalities ol the
Federal government are subject to thispart to the same extent as any person.(d) Except as provided in paragraph(f) of this section, this part does notapply to:(l) The owner or operator of any fa-cility, equipment, or operation that isnot subject to the jurisdiction of the
20
Environmeniol Prolection Agency
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under section 311(j)(l)(C) of the
CWA, as follows:(i) Any onshore or offshore facility,
that due to its location, could not rea-
sonably be expected to have a dis-
charge as described in paragraph (b) of
this section. This determination must
be based solely upon consideration of
the geographical and location aspectsof the facility (such as proximity tonavigable waters or adjoining shore-
lines, land contour, drainage, etc.) andmust exclude consideration of man-
made features such as dikes, equipment
or other structures, which may serveto restrain, hinder, contain, or other-
wise prevent a discharge as described
in paragraph (b) of this section.(ii) Any equipment, or operation of a
vessel or transportation-related on-
shore or offshore facility which is sub-ject to the authority and control of the
U.S. Department of Transportation, as
defined in the Memorandum of Under-standing between the Secretary of
Transportation and the Administratorof EPA, dated November 24, 1971 (Ap-
pendix A ofthis part).(iii) Any equipment, or operation of a
vessel or onshore or offshore facility
which is subject to the authority andcontrol of the U.S. Department of
Transportation or the U.S. Department
of the Interior, as defined in the Memo-
randum of Understanding between the
Secretary of Transportation, the Sec-retary of the Interior, and the Admin-istrator of EPA, dated November 8, 1993
(Appendix B of this part).
(2) Any facility which, although oth-
erwise subject to the jurisdiction of
EPA, meets both of the following re-
quirements:
(i) The completely buried storage ca-
pacity of the facility is 42,000 gallons or
less of oil. For purposes of this exemp-tion, the completely buried storage ca-pacity of a facility excludes the capac-ity of a completely buried tank, as de-fined in Sll2.2, and connected under-ground piping, underground ancillary
equipment, and containment systems,that is currently subject to all of thetechnical requirements of part 280 of
this chapter or all of the technical re-
quirements of a State program ap-
proved under part 281 of this chapter.
The completely buried storage capac-
s r r2.r
ity of a facility also excludes the ca-
pacity of a container that is "perma-
nently closed," as defined in S 112.2.(ii) The aggregate aboveground stor-
age capacity of the facility is 1,320 gal-
lons or less of oil. For purposes of this
exemption, only containers of oil with
a capacity of 55 gallons or greater are
counted. The aggregate aboveground
storage capacity of a facility excludesthe capacity of a container that is
"permanently closed," as defined in
s l 12.2.
(3) Any offshore oil drilling, produc-tion, or workover facility that is sub-ject to the notices and regulations ofthe Minerals Management Service, as
specified in the Memorandum of Under-
standing between the Secretary of
Transportation, the Secretary of theInterior, and the Administrator of
EPA, dated November 8, 1993 (Appendix
B of this part).(4) Any completely buried storagetank, as defined in S112.2, and con-nected underground piping, under-ground ancillary equipment, and con-tainment systems, at any facility, thatis subject to all of the technical re-
quirements of part 280 of this chapteror a State program approved underpart 281 of this chapter, except that
such a tank must be marked on the fa-cility diagram as provided in
Sll2.7(a)(3), if the facility is otherwise
subject to this part.
(5) Any container with a storage ca-pacity of less than 55 gallons ofoil.
(6) Any facility or part thereof used
exclusively for wastewater treatment
and not used to satisfy any require-
ment of this part. The production, re-
covery, or recycling of oil is not waste-
water treatment for purposes of this
paragraph.(e) This part establishes require-
ments for the preparation and imple-
mentation of Spill Prevention, Control,and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans.
SPCC Plans are designed to com-plement existing laws, regulations,
rules, standards, policies, and proce-
dures pertaining to safety standards,fire prevention, and pollution preven-tion rules. The purpose of an SPCC
Plan is to form a comprehensive Fed-eral/State spill prevention programthat minimizes the potential for dis-
charges. The SPCC Plan must address
2t
s r r2.2
all relevant spill prevention, control,
and countermeasures necessary at the
specific facility. Compliance with thispart does not in any way relieve the
owner or operator of an onshore or an
offshore facility from compliance with
other Federal, State, or local laws.
(0 Notwithstanding paragraph (d) ofthis section, the Regional Adminis-
trator may require that the owner or
operator of any facility subject to thejurisdiction of EPA under section 311fi)
of the CWA prepare and implement an
SPCC Plan, or any applicable part, to
carry out the purposes of the CWA.(l) Following a preliminary deter-
mination, the Regional.Administrator
must provide a written notice to the
owner or operator stating the reasons
why he must prepare an SPCC Plan, or
applicable part. The Regional Adminis-trator must send such notice to the
owner or operator by certified mail orby personal delivery. If the owner or
operator is a corporation, the Regional
Administrator must also mail a copy of
such notice to the registered agent, if
any and if known, of the corporation in
the State where the facility is located.
(2) Within 30 days of receipt of such
written notice, the owner or operator
may provide information and data and
may consult with the Agency about the
need to prepare an SPCC Plan, or appli-
cable part.
(3) Within 30 days following the time
under paragraph (b)(2) of this sectionwithin which the owner or operator
may provide information and data and
consult with the Agency about the
need to prepare an SPCC Plan, or appli-
cable part, the Regional Administrator
must make a final determination re-
garding whether the owner or operatoris required to prepare and implement
an SPCC Plan, or applicable part. The
Regional Administrator must send the
final determination to the owner or op-
erator by certified mail or by personal
delivery. If the owner or operator is a
corporation, the Regional Adminis-
trator must also mail a copy of the
final determination to the registered
agent, if any and if known, of the cor-
poration in the State where the facility
is located.(4) If the Regional Administrator
makes a final determination that an
SPCC Plan, or applicable part, is nec-
40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-O4 Edition)
essary, the owner or operator must pre-
pare the Plan, or applicable part, with-in six months of that final determina-
tion and implement the Plan, or appli-
cable part, as soon as possible, but not
later than one year after the Regional
Administrator has made a final deter-
mination.
(5) The owner or operator may appeal
a final determination made by the Re-gional Administrator requiring prepa-
ration and implementation of an SPCC
Plan, or applicable part, under this
paragraph. The owner or operator must
make the appeal to the Administrator
of EPA within 30 days of receipt of thefinal determination under paragraph
(b)(3) of this section from the RegionalAdministrator requiring preparationand/or implementation of an SPCC
Plan, or applicable part. The owner or
operator must send a complete copy ofthe appeal to the Regional Adminis-
trator at the time he makes the appeal
to the Administrator. The appeal must
contain a clear and concise statement
of the issues and points of fact in the
case. In the appeal, the owner or oper-
ator may also provide additional infor-mation. The additional information
may be from any person. The Adminis-trator may request additional informa-
tion from the owner or operator. The
Administrator must render a decisionwithin 60 days of receiving the appeal
or additional information submitted by
the owner or operator and must serve
the owner or operator with the decision
made in the appeal in the manner de-
scribed in paragraph (0(1) of this sec-tion.
$ 112.2 Definitions.
For the purposes of this part:
Adverse weather means weather condi-tions that make it difficult for re-
sponse equipment and personnel to
clean up or remove spilled oil, and that
must be considered when identifying
response systems and equipment in a
response plan for the applicable oper-ating environment. Factors to considerinclude significant wave height as
specified in Appendix E to this part (as
appropriate), ice conditions, tempera-tures, weather-related visibility, and
currents within the area in which the
systems or equipment is intended to
function.
22
Section
lCode of Federal Regulationsl
lTitle 40, Volume 201
lRevised as of July 1, 2004)
From the U.S. Government Printingr Office via GPO Access
ICITE: 40CFR112.81
lPase 32-34)
TITLE 4O__PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT
CHAPTER T__EWIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (CONT]NUED)
PART 112_OIL POLLUTTON PREVENTTON--Table of ConLents
Subpart B_Requirements for Petroleum Oils and Non-Petroleum Oi1s, Except
Sec. 112-g Spi11 Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure PJ-an requirementsfor onshore facilities (excluding production facilities) .
Ani-ma1 Fats and Oils and Greases, and Fish and Marine Mammal Oils; and
VegeLable Oils (lncluding Oils from Seeds, Nuts, Fruit.s, and Kernels)
Source:. 67 FR 47L46, July 17, 2002, unless otherwise noted.
If you are the owner or operator of an onshore facility (excluding aproduction facility) , you must:(a) MeeL Lhe general requirements for the Plan listed under Sec.LL2-7, and the specific discharge prevention and containment procedures
listed in this section.(b) Facility drainage. (1) Restraj-n drainage from diked storage
areas by valves to prevent a discharge i-nto the drainage system orfaci-1ity effluent treatment system, except where facility systems aredesigned to control such discharge. You may empty diked areas by pumpsor ejectors; however, you must manually activate these pumps or ejectors
and must inspect the condition of the accumulation before starti-ng, to
ensure no oi1 will be discharged.(2) Use valves of manual, open-and-closed design, for the drainageof diked areas. You may not use flapper-tlpe drain valves to drain dikedareas. If your facili-ty drainage drains directly into a watercourse andnot into an on-site wastewater treatment p1ant, you must inspect and maydrain uncontaminated retained stormwater, as provided in paragraphs(c) (3) (ii), (iii), and (iv) of this section.(3) Design facillty drainage sysLems from undiked areas with apotential for a discharge (such as where piping is located outside
containment wal-1s or where tank truck discharges may occur outside theloading area) to flow into ponds, lagoons, or catchment basins designedto retain oi1 or return it to the facj-1ity. vou must not locate
catchment basins in areas subject to.periodic flooding.(4) If facility drainage is not engineered as in paragraph (b)(3) ofthis section, equip the final di-scharge of all ditches inside Lhefacility with a diversion system that would, in Lhe event of anuncontrolled discharge, retain oi1 in the facility.(5) Where drainage waters are treated in more than one treatmentunit and such treatment is continuous, and pump transfer ls needed,provide two "lift" pumps and permanently install at least one of thepumps. Whatever techniques you use, you must engineer facj-1ity drainage
systems to prevent a discharge as described in Sec . 1,L2.1 (b) in casethere is an equipment failure or human error at the facility.(c) Bulk storage containers. (1) Not use a container for the storageof oi1 unless its material and construction are compatible wiLh thematerial stored and conditions of storage such as pressure and
temperature.(2\ Construct all bulk storage container instal-lations so thaL you
http://edocket. access. gpo. gov/cfr- 2OO4l julqtr I 40cfrl I 2. 8.htm
Page I of 3
2125t2009
Section Page 2 of 3
provide a secondao *".r|L containment for the entire cfcity of the
largest single container and sufficient freeboard to contain
precipitation. You must ensure that diked areas are sufficiently
impervious to contain discharged oi1. Dikes, containment curbs, and pits
are commonly employed for this purpose. You may also use an alternative
system consisting of a drai-nage trench enclosure that must be arranged
so that any discharge wj-11 terminate and be safely confined in a
facility catchment basin or holding pond.
(3) Not allow drainage of uncontaminated rainwater from the diked
area into a storm drain or discharge of an effluent into an open
watercourse, lake, or pond, bypassing the facility treatment system
unless you:(i) Normally keep the blpass valve sealed closed.(ii) Inspect the retained rainwater to ensure that its presence will
not cause a discharge as described in Sec. 1-L2.1-(b) .
(iii) Open the bypass valve and reseal it following drainage under
responsible supervision; and
[ [Pase 33] l
(iv) Keep adequate records of such events, for example, any records
required under permits issued in accordance with Sec. Sec. 1,22.4]-(j) (2)
and 122.41(m) (3) of this chaPter(4) Protect any completely buried metallic storage tank installed on
or after January 10, 1-974 from corrosion by coating:s or cathodic
protection compatible wiLh local soil conditions. You must regularly
leak test such completely buried metalfic storage tanks.
(5) Not use partially buried or bunkered metallic tanks for the
storage of oil, unless you protect the buried section of the tank from
corrosion. You must protect partially buried and bunkered tanks from
corrosion by coatings or cathodic protection compatibl-e with local soil
conditions.(6) Test each aboveground container for integrity on a regular
schedule, and whenever you make material repairs. The frequency of and
type of testing musL t.ake into account container size and design (such
as floating roof, skid-mounted, elevated, or partially buried) . You must
combine visual inspection with another testing technique such as
hydrostatic testing, radlographic testing, ultrasonic tesLing, acoustic
emissions testing, or another system of non-destructive shel-1 testing.
You must keep comparison records and you must also inspect the
container's supports and foundations. In addiLion, you must frequently
inspect the outside of the container for signs of deterioration,
discharges, or accumulation of oil inside di-ked areas. Records of
inspections and tests kept under usual and customarlr business practices
will suffice for purposes of this paragraph.
(7) Control leakage through defective internal heating coils by
monitori-ng the steam return and exhaust lines for contamination from
internal heating coils that discharge into an open watercourse, or pass
the steam return or exhaust lines through a settling tank, skimmer, or
other separation or retention system.(8) Engineer or update each container installation in accordance
with good engineering pracEice to avoid discharges. You must provide at
least one of the following devices:(i) High liquid level alarms with an audible or visual signal at a
constantly attended operation or surveillance stati-on. In smaller
facilities an audi-ble air vent may suffice.(ii) Hi-gh liquid ]evel pump cutoff devices set to stop flow at a
predetermined container content leveI.
(iii) Direct audibfe or code signal communication between the
container gauger and the pumping station.(iv) A fast response system for determining the liquid level of each
bulk storage container such as digital computers, telepulse, or direct
vision gauges. If you use this alternative, a person must be present to
monitor gauges and the overall fi11i-nq of bulk storage containers.(v) You must regularly test liguid l-evel sensing devices to ensure
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr-2004ljulqtrl40cfrl l2.8.htm 212512009
Section
proper operation.(9) Observe effluent treatment facilities frequently enough to
detect possible system upsets that could cause a discharge as describedin Sec . LL2.1(b) .(10) Promptly correct visible discharges which result in a loss of
o11 from the contai-ner, including but not limited to seams, gaskets,
piping, pumps, valves, riveLs, and bolts. You must promptly remove any
accumulaLions of oil- 1n diked areas.(11) PosiLion or locate mobile or portable oil storage containers to
prevent a discharge as descrlbed in Sec . 1,12.1 (b) . You must furnish a
secondary means of containment, such as a dike or catchment. basin,
sufflcient to contain the capacity of the largest single comparLment orcontainer with sufficient freeboard to conlain precipitation.
(d) Facility transfer operations, pumping, and facility process. (1)
Provide buried piping that is installed or replaced on or after August16, 2002, with a protective wrapping and coating. You must alsocathodically protect such buried piping installations or otherwisesatisfy the corrosion protection standards for piping in part 280 of
this chapter or a State program approved under part 281 of this chapter.If a section of buried line is exposed for any reason, you mustcarefully inspect it for deterioration. If you find corrosion damage,
you must undertake additionaf examinatj-on and corrective action asindicated by the magnj-tude of the damage.
[ [Paqe 34] l
(2) Cap or blank-flange the termj-nal connection at the transferpoint and mark it as to origin when piping is not in service or is in
standby service for an extended time.(3) Properly design pipe supports to minimize abrasion and corrosion
and al1ow for expansion and contraction.(4) Regularly inspect all aboveground valves, pipingr, and
appurtenances. During the inspection you must assess the general
condition of items, such as flange joints, expansion jolnts, valveglands and bodies, catch pans, pipeline supports, Iocking of valves, and
metal surfaces. You must also conduct integrity and leak testing ofburied piping at the time of installation, modifj-cation. construction,relocation, or replacement.(5) Warn all vehicles entering the facility to be sure that novehicle will endanger aboveground piping or other oi1 transfer
operations.
http://edocket. access. gpo. gov/cfr_2004/ julqtr / 40cfr I 1 2. 8. htm 2t25t2009
fYii*|,,
1t::i;!'t;'i,
:::.':,,:l:,:ii r1ti;!:!. if
ffi
mru
Eo
.-o
E
TTITrr
EEtftl
E
F-lr!tf
rrEIErr
:: : = : l, :::::::
Subi: cmfirmattry actim letter North side of Mill/ dr
Atfr: Stsren Landau
Environmental Manager
Denisor Mines (USA)Ctrp
1050 17rh st srE 950
Denver CO 80265
r Complete items'1, 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.r Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.r Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
EI Agent
tr
Yes
E tto
la "ddress difiercnt fiom item 1?
deliveryaddrcss below:SuUi:confirmatory action ldter North side MilU dr
Attn:Steven Landau
Environmental Manager
Denison Mines (USA) CorP
1050 17th st sTE 950
DenverCO 80265
3. ServiceType
fi Certmea uait E Expr€ss Mail'E negistereO E Return Receipt for Merchandise
El lnsured Mail E C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (ErtnFee) E Yes
2. Article Number
(Transfer ftom seruice label)lq07 E?1rl uuEU ?ltE h8e3
PS Form 381 1, feOruary 2004 Domestic Betum Beceipt -f02595{2-M-1540
State
JON M. HUNTSMAN, JR.
Govemor
GARY HERBERT
Lieutenant Govemor
a
Department of
Environmental Quality
William J. Sinclair
Acting Executive Director
DTVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
Dane L. Finerfrock
Director
January 22,2009
Certified Mail
(Return Receipt Requested)
Mr. Steven Landau
Environmental Manager
Denison Mines (USA) Corporation
1050 17th Sfteet, Suite 950
Denver, CO 80265
Dear Mr. Landau:
SUBJECT:Denison Mines (USA) Corporation (DUSA) White Mesa Mill Facility
DRC lnspection Results: Storm Water Best Management kactices Plan (SWBMPP)
(Engineering Module 77)May 2I,2008 and November 5,2008
Confirmatory Action Letter and Commitment for Elimination of a Tamarisk Swamp
on the North Side of the Mill
An inspection was held on November 5, 2008 and May 21,2008 at the DUSA mill facilities near Blanding,
Utah. On November 5, 2008 Dave Rupp of the DRC met with Ryan Palmer, David Turk and Rich Bartlett
of DUSA. On May 21,2008 Dave Rupp met with Mike Spillman and Harold Roberts of DUSA. During
both DRC inspection times, several issues and items were observed.
The most obvious item was the existence of a below grade tamarisk swamp (hereafter "swamp") on the
south side of the large sulfuric acid tank, on the north side of the mill. On May 21,2008 the "swamp" was
wet and contained standing water from drainage. On November 5,2009 the "swamp" area appeared dry.
Section 4.1.4 of the SWBMPP states, "Areas requiring maintenance or repair, such as excessive vegetative
growth, channel erosion or pooling of surface water runoff, will be report[ed] to site management and
maintenance departments for necessary action to repair damage or perform reconstruction in order for the
control feature to perform as intended." Section 2.0 states, "The Mill site was constructed with an overall
grade and diversion ditch system designed to channel all surface runofl including precipitation equivalent
to a Probable Maximum Precipitation/ Probable Maximum Flood (PMP/PMF) storm event, to the tailings
management system."
Potential elimination of the "swamp" was discussed with DUSA staff during the May 21, 2008 inspection.
On that day DRC and DUSA staff observed drainage was being routed into the "swamp." Since the storm
water does not quickly paSS through the "swamp," it detains runoff and creates a potential ground water
infiltration zone. We also discussed that DUSA needs to consider taking out the whole "swamp" area to
conform to the SWBMPP plan requirements.
I 68 North 1950 West . Salt lake City, UT
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144850 . Salt hke City, UT 84114-4850
Telephone [phone]. Fax [phone]. T.D.D. [phone]
www.deq.utah.gov
hinted on 100% recycled paper
)
0rI 5Ig ralela pmorc :alld
cop'Ll elnpontr tuunrrrJ?'IvJ g0oasuou3sdsq alnpohlvsno\:g
rp:IAIST:UVC
uouces secr^ias IeJluqseloec 'g'd'ddnu'V pl^e(I vryr
f,larecurg
'eru lJuluoc aseald 'luerulrururoc eloqu erp uo suousenb ,(uu e,req no,{ 11
'6002 '08 eunl eroJeq ro uo BerB
..durc1r\s,, eql elBurur[e plno/y\ VS1C luq] perrurutoc no,( 600Z'ZZ,ftunue1 uo uolpsre^uoc auoqdele] B uI
'{uB} prcu crrnJlns e8rel eql;o q}nos BaJp duert\s {sIJBIUul
eql Jo uorlBururle eqt JoJ elBp rujg u apr,rord vsnc pelsenber eA\ 'peuopueru suorlBsJe,r.uoc eql o1 dn
/t\olloJ B sB puu e^oq? ddIAIglA.S eql Jo slueuarrnba; a8eurcrp eql qlrt\ acuerlduoc aprlord 01 'eJoJaJeqI
'pauoqueru lou s?/( elep cgrcads e q8noqlp
'6002 Jo SuFds eql ur sduqred 'Bere ..durerv\s,, eloql\ eqt eluuruqe o1 sueld VS1O lBIfl peuolluelu sulr\
l! 'ue.re ..dururr\s,, e^oqu eql Surpre8er 'Jerrerrroll '(quetuernbeJ wld IVS71I lC ro; uoqcedsul eql sem ,(ep
tur{t trsr^ ers eqtJo esodrnd ururu eql) 'uottcedsur dd1l11gl&S oqt SuIprBAer VSO61Jo i}elueg qclg puu
'reruled ue,(g 1mg pl^B(I qUA\ elrs uo ,(geyq laur ddng 'JIAtr '8002 'S reqrue^oN uo uortcedsul eqt Suung
7a3e4
600Z'27,,{J?nuu1
LL elnpol4J SuueeutSug
nBpuu'I 'c ua^els 'rIAi
State of Utah
JON M. HUNTSMAN. JR
Governor
GARY HERBERT
Lieutenant Governor
Department of
Environmental Quality
William J. Sinclair
A< ting Executive Director
DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
Dane L. Finerfrock
Direcktr
MEMORANDUM
TO: FILE: IUC02.06.08 2008 Engineering Inspections
DATE: December 22,2008
SUBJECT: 2008 Engineering Module 77 Inspection
Storm Water Best Management Practices Plan (SWBMPP) Inspection
Site visits May 21,2008 and November 5, 2008
General Site Observations:
On May 21,2008 Dave Rupp of DRC met with Mike Spillman and Harold Roberts of DUSA at the White
Mesa Uranium Mill regarding a SWBMPP inspection. This day the Cell4,A' construction project took the
majority of the time on site. The main item of discussion, and the important item from this inspection, is
the elimination of the Tamarisk swamp on the south side of the large sulfuric acid tank. Drainage is being
routed into the swamp. Since the storm water does not quickly pass through the swamp, it detains runoff
and could create a ground water infiltration zone.
Messrs. Spillman and Rupp discussed possibly discontinuing the discharge of drainage into the Tamarisk
swamp. We discussed DUSA needs to consider taking out the whole swamp area to conform to the
SWBMPP plan, i.e. to facilitate rapid drainage of storm water.
Later in the year, on November 5, 2008, Mr. Rupp met briefly on site with David Turk of DUSA regarding
the SWBMPP inspection. The main purpose of the site visit that day was the inspection for DMT/BAT
PIan requirements. However, regarding the swamp, Mr. Turk mentioned that DUSA plans to remove the
whole swamp marsh area, although a date specific was not mentioned. As shown in the transmittal letter
regarding the inspection, the single request is for a specific date for DUSA to eliminate the swamp.
SWBMPP Requirements:
The DUSA staff is to identify and eliminate problems areas of pooling water, caused by improper grading
and plugged ditches, drainage and process sewer piping systems. Other than the swampy areas identified
during this inspection, there were no large areas of pooling storm water observed. It appears that DUSA is
making serious efforts to improve drainage.
Elimination of pooling water and storm drainage crossing roads are targets of the Storm Water Best
Management Practices Plan. Ditches should be maintained to rapidly channel runoff under roadways using
culverts, rather than over road surfaces, to prevent ground water infiltration and road damage.
168 North 1950 West . Salt lake City, UT
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144850. Salt lake City, UT 841l4-4850
Telephone [phone]. Fax [phone]' T.D.D. [phone]
www.deq-utoh.gov
Printed on 100% recycled paper
Memo on SWBMPP Inspection
December 22,2008
Page 2
Problem areas are to be reported to site management and maintenance departments for necessary action to
perform reconstruction in order for the control feature to perform as intended. The status of such
construction, maintenance and repairs are to be documented during follow up inspections, and additional
action taken if necessary.
Documentation of construction, repairs and maintenance for storm water management should be checked
in future Module 77 inspections. An April 2009 inspection would be very appropriate for this, as storm
water runoff from snow melt could be easily identified.
Reagent Tank Facilities:
Any new reagent tank facilities?
Yes. "All" tanks containment vessels are in process of being replaced by DUSA in-house workers. These
vessels will have reinforced concrete walled vessels for spill containment. Interior walls will be sprayed
with "Rhino liner" type material. This new spill containment project was slated for completion about
March 2008.
A separate inspection on the DMT and BAT Plans reviewed one of the specific tank farms and containment
areas at the site. DUSA is currently preparing their response regarding the DMTIBAT inspection, which
took place concurrently to this SWBMPP inspection on November 5, 2008.
The Ground Water Discharge Permit requires any new construction of reagent storage facilities (after
March 8, 2005), secondary containment and control to prevent any contact of the spilled or otherwise
released reagent or product with the ground surface (Ground Water Discharge Permit I.D.3.e).
Spills: Any spills?
No. The permit requirement for the Storm Water Best Management Practices Plan is to include the
"cleanup spills of stored reagents or other chemicals at the mill site immediately upon discovery" (I.D.8.c).
Reportable spills?
No. The permit requirement that a Storm Water Best Management Practices Plan include that the company
must report reagent spills or other releases at the mill site to the Executive Secretary in accordance with
utah code, Title 19-5-114 (I.D.8.d).
Pertaining to Storm Water Pooling:
It is the objective of both the grading on site and the Storm Water Best Management Practices Plan that
runoff from the mill system (which includes areas around the tailings ponds) be channeled into the tailings
cells or the Roberts Pond, but not into other pools. It is an objective of the approved plan to eliminate
pooling of drainage.
Site visits should take place on days following rainstorms, if possible, so it is easy to locate areas of
pooling water. Ponding within the tailings ponds are not considered an issue.
Memo on SWBMPP Inspec
December 22,2008
Page 3
During this inspection documentation was not reviewed. However, as mentioned earlier, this inspection
was performed incidental to others. The following records need to be kept on file and should be reviewed
for in the next SWBMPP inspection scheduled for April 2009:
Current copy of the Storm Water Best Management Practices Plan.
The Spill Prevention Containment and Countermeasures Plan.
The Emergency Response Plan
These last two plans should be kept with the SWBMPP, but also kept separately on file.
Records of storm water related necessarv maintenance being kept (Section 4.1.4):
The status of maintenance and repairs are to be documented during weekly follow-up
inspections, and additional actions taken if necessary. No check of documentation was
performed during this inspection.
Weekly inspection records kept:
The only applicable in cases for this is where maintenance and repairs are necessary, per
the above.
Referencefromtbe Storm Water Best Management Practices Plan:
4.1.4: Inspection and Maintenance of Diversion Ditches and Drainage Channels within the
Process and Reagent Storage Area.
Diversion ditches, drainage channels and surface water control structures in and around the Mill
area will be inspected at least weekly in accordance with the regularly scheduled inspections
required by Groundwater Discharge Permit No. UGW370 004, and Byproduct Materials License
fln1900419. Areas requiring maintenance or repair, such as excessive vegetative growth,
channel erosion or pooling of surface water runoff, will be report to site management and
maintenance departments for necessary action to repair damage or perform reconstruction in order
for the control feature to perform as intended. Status of maintenance or repairs will be documented
during follow up inspections and additional action taken if necessary.
-END-
F:\DUSAWodule InspectionsV008 MEMO SWInsp l2-08.doc
t
tion
L
Z.
-).
qffi
State of Utah
JON M. HUNTSMAN. JR
Govemor
GARY HERBERT
Lieutenant Governor
Department of
Environmental Quality
William J. Sinclair
Atling Executive Dirertor
DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
Dane L. Finerfrock
Direclor
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
DUSA File IUC 03.04
Engineering Module 75E
Tailings Cells 1-3 and Roberts Pond DMT and Cell4A BAT Performance
Standards and Monitoring Inspection
An inspection was held on November 5, 2008 at the DUSA mill facilities near Blanding, Utah. Messrs.
David Rupp of DRC, Ryan Palmer, David Turk and Rich Bartlett of DUSA attended the inspection. A
DRC letter dated December 17 ,2008 conveyed a RFI to DUSA, desiring details on a specific tank farm
spill containment storage, the new tank construction, C4A southwest corner rub sheet missing, and
renaming the Sedimentation Pond in the company inspection forms to the Roberts Pond.
Via defined DMT and BAT inspection requirements, the DUSA staff is to monitor the subject facilities,
pursuant to Part I.E.7 and 8 of the Ground Water Discharge Permit. DUSA staff reported that currently,
weekly inspections are usually done on Fridays, monthly inspections usually the last week of the month,
and quarterly inspections the last week of the quarter.
Tailings cell are inspected by DUSA staff using criteria and forms in the White Mesa Mill Tailings
Management System and Discharge Minimization Technology (DMT) Monitoring Plan (DMT Plan) and
the Cell4A BAT Monitoring, Operations ancl Maintenance Plan (Cell4A O&M Plan). These inspections
require monthly reporting to mill management and in some cases immediate notice.
A summary of findings follows:
A. Review of Records
The following DUSA inspection reports listed below were kept on file, with no records missing. I
selected about 107o of the individual records at random and reviewed them for completeness
against the requirements of the DMT and O&M Plans. The inspection reports reviewed appeared
to be complete, and in compliance, unless otherwise expounded upon below in this memorandum.
I reviewed the following inspection reports:
l. Ore Storage/Sample Plant Weekly Inspection Report.
2. Weekly records for Roberts Pond, Cell I, Cell 2, Cell3 and Cell 4A.
3. The monthly slimes drain recovery test for Cell 2. For this test, DUSA is now consistently
168 North 1950 west. Salt lzke City, UT
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144850. Salt lake City, UT 84114-4850
Telephone [phone]. Fax (801'533-4097. T.D.D. [phone]
www.deq.utah. gov
Printed on 10001, recycled paper
Memorandum
Engineering Module 75E
January 6,2009
Page2
using a 104-hour testing cycle to estjmate the static stabilized head. The approved DMT' Plan calls for a minimum recovery time of 9O-hours and no change in the water level for
three (3) successive readings taken no less than one (1) hour apart. (DMT Plan 3.l.b.vi).
ln contrast to this requirement, during recovery tests performed in April through
September 2008, DUSA failed to stabilize the head reading by providing three (3)
successive hourly head measurements without any change in water level. lnstead, the
measured heads continued to increase during these readings on an average ofroughly 0.02
feet per hour.
B. Operations
1. Cell2 Slimes Drain Static Head Measurements are being made in accordance with section
I.E.l .b of the permit with the above adjustment for the increased recovery time.
2. The Weekly Tailings Wastewater Pool Elevation Monitoring reports for tailings Cells 1
and 3 also are being made in accordance with Condition 10.3 of the License.
3. During the inspection, DRC staff verified the elevation recently surveyed of the slimes
drain access pipe water level measuring point. Per letter dated April 10, 2008, DRC
requested the elevation of the actual measuring point on the top of the slimes drain access
pipe of Cell2 be established. A "case elevation" was surveyed and reported by Fisher &
Sons Surveying as 5614.83 fmsl. During the November 5, 2008 inspection, the location of
this surveyed point was verified by R. Palmer of DUSA to be the actual point for slimes
drain elevation measurement. DRC staff found the point is marked with paint on the
interior and the top of the north side of the slimes drain access pipe.
4. DUSA and DRC have had some concerns about the quality and consistency of inspections
reported among the several inspectors. From the DRC perspective, the problems consisted
of omissions by inspectors simply checking boxes without providing quantities or detailed
observation notes. or providing inaccurate drawings of the existing layouts. To help
eliminate this problem, R. Palmer and D. Turk of the DUSA reported that the
environmental staff at the mill is now doing the weekday inspections, and that the weekend
inspections are being done by the mill foremen. This change began in mid-October 2008
according to DUSA staff.
C. Maximum Tailings Waste Solids Elevation:
Upon closure of any tailings cell, the Permittee shall ensure that the maximum elevation of the
tailings waste solids does not exceed the top of the flexible membrane liner (FML). [Ground
Water Discharge Permit Part I.D.3(c)1. This item was discussed during the inspection, but not with
respect to the spillway between Cells 3 and 4,A..
The dike between Cells 3 and 4A now includes a new concrete spillway for overflow from Cell3. The
spillway is about 4-feet below the top of the cell 3 FML on the dike. DRC strictly interprets this
Permit requirement of Part I.D.3(c) to also apply to the spillway area, and the waste will need to be
maintained below the top of the FML at that location.
Proposed freeboard limit calculations were submitted by DUSA as a license amendment application
on December 11,2008. The above tailings placement issue will need to be considered during DRC
review of the proposed license amendment.
D. Roberts Pond:
Memorandum
Engineering Module 75E
January 6,2009
Page 3
On the monthly inspection form, paragraph three refers to a "Summary of Activities Around the
Sedimentation Pond." This sediment pond is the same pond referred to by DUSA staff and on
other forms as the "Roberts Pond."
Therefore, to increase consistency in reporting, and clarify the object for those unfamiliar,
the inspection form needs to be changed to call the "Sedimentation Pondr" the Roberts Pond.
E. Mill Site Chemical Reaeent Spill Containment: '
Per the Ground Water Discharge Permit part LD.3(g): "Mill Site Chemical Reagent Storage - for all
chemical reagents stored at existing storage facilities and held for use in the milling process, the Permittee
shall provide secondary containment to capture and contain all volumes of reagent(s) that might be released
at any individual storage area . . . For any new construction of reagent storage facilities, said
secondary containment and control shall prevent any contact of the spilled or otherwise released
reagent or product with the ground surface."
At a recently constructed containment area, east of the SX building, the dimensions of the containment area
were measured during the November 5, 2008 inspection. The area was measured to be about 3.17' high X
94.5' longx 66.5' wide, with a calculated capacity (including tank volume below the wall) of about
148,840 gallons.
The containment area walls appeared to be concrete with a vertical extension consisting of corrugated
fiberglass panels. The panels appeared to be supported by vertical posts at intervals, connected at the
concrete base and laterally to adjacent panels by a golden colored adhesive. This area shown on a map
from the Storm Water Best Management Plan (SWBMPP) appears to be at or near the sodium chlorate
storage area.
There were three tanks enclosed in the above area. DUSA staff informed me that this was a raffinate and
SX feed tank area, and provided information that indicated the two larger tanks had a combined capacity of
122,350 gallons, and the smaller organic scavenger tank, which was not in current service (empty on the
day ofinspection), had a capacity of54,500 gallons.
It therefore appears that the spill containment capacity may be adequate for the storage conditions of
November 5, 2008, so long as the organic scavenger tank remains empty. However, if the scavenger tank
is filled, the capacity of the containment may not be adequate "to capture and contain all volumes of
reagent(s) that might be released at any individual storage area . . ."
Therefore, we requested DUSA provide the following information regarding this containment:
1. The dimensions, capacity and the reagent(s) used in these tanks.
2. A detailed complete plumbing layout for the above tank containment area.
3. Justification of why the containment constructed complies with the requirements of
Part I.D.3 (g) of the Permit.
Separately, we requested
4. An updated current map of all reagent tank areas showing the current tanks.
Include tank capacities and reagents stored in the respective tanks.
F. Liner Maintenance Provisions (Ground Water Discharge Permit Part I.H.12):
Memorandum
Engineering Module 75E
January 6,2009
Page 4
The Liner Maintenance Provisions (LMP) provided by DUSA by letter dated October 22,2008
have been approved by DRC. No liner repairs have been made this year. Therefore, no
corresponding Liner Repair Reports were generated.
G. CeIl4A Solution Discharse
l. On November 5, 2008, DRC staff observed that initial solutions (no tailings slurry) were
being discharged into the southwest corner of Cell 4A. Per the O&M Plan, the discharge
pipe is to be routed down the Splash Pad provided in the southwest corner of the Cell to
protect the FML and the piping. The piping extends onto a solution barge, as shown in
Photo l below.
Piping running onto the solutions barge, in the
southwest corner of Cell 4A. The discharge piping
as shown appears to have been installed to the left,
or north of the darker splash pad.
In photo no. 1 above, the piping to the barge appears to have been installed off the
splash pad. If so, this does not conform to the Cell 4A O&M Plan (Cell Operations
section, p.3). However, the approved as-built drawings do not show an FML splash-
pad (rub sheet) in this area. Therefore, it is not a construction QA/QC violation.
DUSA was asked to explain and justify how the circumstances observed on
November 5, 2008 are compliant with the approved O&M Plan, or alternatively
provide a plan and schedule for how DUSA will return to compliance with the O&M
Plan requirements.
Solutions were not yet being discharged along the dike between Cell 3 and Cell 4A at the
time of the inspection. Such discharge piping is to be isolated along the Splash Pads routes
for the pipelines as described in the Cell 4A, O&M Plan. The discharge of process
solutions is to be near the floor of the pond. These discharges are to be through a
discharge header designed to discharge through multiple points, thereby reducing the
potential to damage the Splash Pads or the Slimes Drain system (O&M Plan paragraph. l,
p. 4). At no time is solution to be discharged into less than 2-feet of solution. This
2.
Photo 1.
Memorandum
Engineering Module 75E
January 6,2009
Page 5
I.
H.
indicates that single pipeline of discharge between Cells 3 and 4A will not occur, only
simultaneous multiple pipeline discharges.
DUSA staff noted that ends of the discharge piping between Cells 3 and 4A have been set
at 2-feet above the cell floor of Cell 4A, for each splash pad. It appears this is to help
assure discharge does not occur until water has reached the ends of the each respective
discharge pipe which corresponds to an adjacent water elevation of at least 2-feet.
Initial Solids Discharse.
DUSA staff reported that the discharge of tailings solids has not yet occurred for Cell 4A. SX
liquid raffinate is being discharged to Cell No. l. However, according to DUSA staff, such
raffinate will not be discharged to Cell 4A. However, the O&M Plan does allow it. Currently
only supernatant tailings slurry water from Cell 3 has been discharged to Cell 4,{.
Eouipment Access Traffic was not occurring on the FML in Cell 4,A at the time of the inspection.
Access is restricted on the lined interior portion of the cell due to the potential to damage the
flexible membrane liner. Only rubber tired all terrain vehicles or foot traffic is to be allowed on
the flexible membrane liner.
Cell 4A Liner'Maintenance and OA/OC. No construction defects or operational damage has
been discovered or performed on the flexible membrane liner for Cell 4A. Defects and damages
are to be repaired, tested and documented according to the procedures detailed in the approved
Revised Construction Quality Assurance Plan for the Construction of the Cell 4A Lining System,
May 2007, by GeoSyntec Consultants, pursuant to the approved DUSA Liner Maintenance Plan
for Cell4A.
Maximum Allowable Head - I observed a digital meter for display of the flow and a transducer
pressure sensor meter. The pressure is indicated from the transducer located at the centerline of the
horizontal sump pump located in the bottom of the LDS access pipe in the southwest corner of Cell
4A. The O&M Plan on p. 6, paragraph2) reads "Under no circumstance shall the fluid head in the
leak detection system sump exceed a l-foot level above the lowest point in the lower flexible
membrane liner [on grade]." The sensor reported it had 7.5-inches of head above it at about 9 a.m.
on November 5, 2008. The maximum allowable head, according to R. Palmer of DUSA is 2.5-
feet. The pump-on switch elevation was reported to be set at roughly 2.3 feet by R. Palmer.
The O&M Plan on p. 6 refers to the DMT Plan that,'the Permittee shall measure the fluid head
above the lowest point on the secondary flexible membrane by the use of procedures and
equipment specified in the White Mesa MiIl Tailings Management System and Discharge
Minimization Technology (DMT) monitoring Plan,3/07 Revision: Denison-3, or the currently
approved DMT Plan. Under no circumstance shall fluid head in the leak detection system sump
exceed a 1-foot level above the lowest point in the lower flexible membrane liner."
Paragraph 3.1.a of the DMT Plan states, 'The Cell 4A leak detection system is monitored on a
continuous basis by use of a pressure transducer that feeds water level information to an electronic
data collector. The pressure transducer is calibrated for fluid with a specific gravity of 1.0. The
water levels are measured every hour and the information is stored for later retrieval. The water
levels are measured to the nearest 0.10 inch. The data collector is currently programmed to store 7
days of water level information. The number of days of stored data can be increased beyond 7
days if needed. The water level data is downloaded to a laptop computer on a weekly basis and
J.
K.
Memorandum
Engineering Module 75E
January 6,2009
Page 6
incorporated into the Mill's environmental monitoring data base, and into the files for weekly
inspection reports of the tailings cell leak detection systems."
The 2.5-feet head limitation in the LDS appears to have been derived by taking the flow-line
elevation of the sump pump carrier pipe, adding the 18-inch diameter of the sump carrier pipe, and
then l-foot for the head on the lower liner, for a total of 2.5-feet.
The Figure I drawing attached shows a more precise layout of the LDS sump. The distance from
the centerline ofthe sump pressure transducer to one-foot head above the top ofthe hypothetical
secondary liner location above the sump is calculated to be 2.28 feet. This consists of 14.8-inches
to the bottom of the pipe top, 0.6-inches pipe thickness, 0.06-inches for the secondary FML, and
12-inches maximum head on the secondary FML.
DUSA's 2.5-foot maximum calculation in the sump carrier pipe neglects the diameter of the sump
pump, the thicknesses of the upper wall of the sump carrier pipe, and the secondary liner. The
cushion geotextile is not considered, because it is replaced by the secondary liner in a typical
section.
As shown in the drawing, the point of compliance on the secondary liner is hypothetical in
location. It appears more precision could be added by appropriately adjusting for the above.
DUSA records on the maximum head were not sought out. However, R. Palmer indicated the
switch point for the pump was set at a lower head elevation, so the maximum liner head of Z.S-feet
is not reached before the pump activates. Page 6 paragraph 2) of the O&M Plan also states that the
Permittee shall measure the fluid head above the lowest point on the secondary flexible membrane
by the use of procedures and equipment specified in the currently approved DMT Plan, and that,
"I-Inder no circumstance is the fluid head in the leak detection system sump to exceed a l-foot level
above the lowest point on the upper FML."
L. Maximum Allowable Dailv LDS Flow Rates -
The flow meter for the LDS system was in place and I observed it operating when the pump was
manually activated and drew down the head below 7.5-inches. The volume of the liquid pumped
from the LDS was estimated from September 17, 2008 to November 5, 2008 was noted by me.
The total pumped through the flow totalizer recorded was 3,650 gallons. This volume divided by
the number of days of use corresponds to an averag e of 7 6 gallons per day leakage rate through the
upper liner. I did not note when leakage first appeared in the LDS, or the exact date fluid transfer
began.
To accurately determine the average leakage to a given date the total leakage inventory in the sump
must be pumped to shut off level, and at the next leakage check pumped to shut-off level again.
The total volume pumped over the time period between these pumpings divided by the number of
days is the average leakage rate.
The Permittee is to measure the volume of all fluids pumped from the LDS on a weekly basis, and
use that information to calculate an average volume pumped per day. Under no circumstances
shall the daily LDS flow volume exceed 24,160 gallons/day [Permit Part I.D.6(b)]. The maximum
daily LDS flow volume will be compared against the measured cell solution levels detailed in
Table I of the O&M Plan to determine the maximum daily allowable LDS flow volume for the
head conditions in the cell.
Memorandum
Engineering Module 75E
January 6,2009
PageT
F:\drupp\DUSAModular lnspectionsV00S Module 75E\lnspection Report.doc
File: IUC 03.O4
On the day of the inspection, the depth of the water in the southwest corner of the pond was 10.4-
feet, reported by DUSA staff. The corresponding allowable leakage rate for such depth is 314
gallons per acre-day (gpad) in accordance with Table 1 of the O&M Plan. With an average depth
of 5-feet the corresponding limit is 222 gpad. Both of these allowable rates are well above that
experienced, in that:
l) The fluid in Cell 4A covered an area ofabout 2O-acres, and
2) The average LDS flow rate was about 76 gallons in total per day.
cushlo'. a-o{.x}i\*tbu 6 fr/C Prpc Wa tl
Cr.tsrr lohl cruofald f l tg
4
'd
.-3
|:'*
I ril
di
tst
DJit
$r,t
6(t-tnr.€r{t
LEE
Se.so dP6e.'f ur olsiE^_
J-t\J Prlt
TD
Fv\v
tlr
il
-
lk, Btn
z lt,U
I rlrl
l?,0
\ ,4Q
.D5
, oos
I' DQ
\4, g:'
tll,V
, obu
lr.t OO
-----e*e{1 ,*b
I ,2'15'
.(}sl
, oo E'-
I *AO I
-)---*ffi
2 r?.8 62.4 55
Harvel PVC Pipe Schedule 40 & 80 Dimensions-Harvel Plastics, Inc.
e
Page I of 2
PVC PIPING SYSTEMS
Schedule 40 & 80
Applications
Dimensions
Temperature Derating
Specifications-Schedule 40
Spesif r_c_atans SsheduIe. 80
Schedule 120
Applications
Dimensions
Temperature Derating
Spesfilatalc
SDR Series
13.5, 21 ,26,41
Applications
Dimensions
Temperature Derating
Specifications
Literature Req.[esI
Quote Begues!
News
Contac-t-ldq
P roduct Specif ications
Downloads
Sa I e-q_F ep res e n tat ives
Max. W.F. P$l**
810
780
620
600
480
450
370
330
2BO
300
260
240
220
190
180
160
140
130
130
130
130
120
120
PVf, Pipe
Superior Quality Piping for a Wide Range of Applications
SCHEDULE 40 & BO - DIMENSIONS
Schedule 40 Dimensions
Nom. Pipe Size (in) CI.D. Average 1.0. l!'lin. Wall Nom. Wt,/Ft.
1t8',
114"
3/8',
112',
314"
'1"
1-114"
1-112"
2'
2-112',
3'.
3-112"
4',
5',
6',
8',
10'
1z',
14',
16',
1B'
20"
24"
0.405
0.540
0.675
0.840
1.050
1 .315
1.660
1.900
2.375
2.875
3.500
4.000
4.500
5.563
6.625
8.625
10.750
12.750
14.000
16.000
18.000
20.000
24.000
0.249 0.068 0.051
0.344 0.088 0.086
0.473 0.091 0.1 15
0.602 0.109 0.170
0.804 0.113 0.226
1.029 0.133 0.333
1 .360 0.'t 40 0.450
1.590 0.145 0.537
2.047 0.154 0.720
2.445 0.203 '1.136
3.042 0.216 1.488
3.521 0.226 1.789
3.998 0.237 2.118
5.016 0.258 2.87 4
6.031 0.280 3.733
7.942 0.322 5.619
9.976 0.365 7.966
1 1.889 0.406 10.534
'!3.073 0.437 12.462
14.940 0.500 16.286
16.809 0.562 20.587
18.743 0.593 24.183
22.544 0.687 33.652
Schedule 80 Dimensions
http ://www. harvel.com/pipepvc-sch40-80-dim.asp U6t2009
JItllJ]J]
E
TT
TTr!
trfEEE
Erl
rLE
rrEErr
SUBJ: (DUSA) modute tSE 11 tSDA}Btdr
STEVE LANDAU
Manager, Environmenta I Affairs
DENTSON MTNES (USA) CORP
1050 17th sT sTE 9s0
DENVER CO 80265
. FIqtgJ:ite.TS 1,.2_r and 3. Atso comptet-
_ Iem 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.r Print your name and address on tfrjreverse_ so that we can return the card to you. - --r Attach this card to the back of thd ,"itpi""",or on the front if space permits.
tr
EI Agent
ol Delivery
1 Arfide Addncesl ta,
SUBJ: (DUSA) module 75E
STEVE LANDAU
Manager, Environmental Affairs
DENtsoN MINES (USA) CORP
1050 17th sT sTE 950
DENVER CO 80265
Recerved
7\Yt\w
L'l
2. Article Number
(fiansfer fiom sa vice ta}rr!)?EU? U?IB EEoU ?150 brsr
PS Form 381 1, reuruary zOoa Domestic Retum Receipt 10259il2-lr+lSao
/ FtLt(,iqffi
State of Utah
Department of
Environmental Quality
Richard W. Sprott
Executive Direttor
DTVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
Dane L. Finerfrock
DirectorJON M. HUNTSMAN, JR.
Goventor
GARY HERBERT
Lieutenanl Governor
December 17,2008
Certified Mail
(Return Receipt Requested)
Mr. Steven Landau
Environmental Manager
Denison Mines (USA) Corporation
1050 lTth Street, Suite 950
Denver, CO 80265
Dear Mr. Landau:
Subject:Denison Mines (USA) Corporation (DUSA) White Mesa Mill Facility
DRC Inspection Results: Tailings Cells 1-3 and Roberts Pond DMT and Cell4,{
BAT Perfoilnance Standards and Monitoring Inspection (Engineering Module
75E) November 5, 2008: Division of Radiation Control (DRC) Findings and
Request for Information
The subject inspection was held on November 5, 2008 at the DUSA mill facilities near Blanding,
Utah. Messrs. David Rupp of DRC and Ryan Palmer, David Turk, and Rich Bartlett of DUSA
attended the inspection, which ended with a discussion or closeout meeting. This was the first
DRC inspection regarding this specific module. Our pertinent findings and related requests for
information follow:
Maximum Tailings Waste Solids Elevation:
Upon closure of any tailings cell, the Permittee shall ensure that the maximum elevation of the tailings
waste solids does not exceed the top of the flexible membrane liner (FML). [Ground Water Discharge
Permit (Permit) Part I.D.3(c)]. This item was discussed during the inspection, but not with respect to the
spillway between Cells 3 and 4,A'.
The dike between Cells 3 and 4A now includes a new concrete spillway for overflow from Cell3. The
spillway is about 4-feet below the top of the cell 3 FML on the dike. Please be advised that the
Permit requirement of Part I.D.3(c) also applies to the spillway area, and the waste will need to be
maintained below the top of the FML at that location.
Proposed freeboard limit calculations were submitted by DUSA as a license amendment application
on December 11, 2008. The above tailings placement issue will be considered during review of the
proposed license amendment.
I 68 North 1950 West . Salt lake City, UT
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144850 . Salt Lake City, UT 841l4-4850
Telephone [phone]. Fax [phone]' T.D.D. (801) 5364414
www.deq.utnh.got'
hinted on 100% recycled paper
Mr. Steven Landau
Engineering Module 75E
December 17,2008
Page2
Roberts Pond:
On the monthly inspection form, paragraph three refers to a "Summary of Activities Around the
Sedimentation Pond." This sediment pond is the same pond referred to by DUSA staff and on other forms
as the "Roberts Pond."
Therefore, to increase consistency in reporting, and clarify the object for those unfamiliar, the
inspection form needs to be changed to call the "Sedimentation Pondr" the Roberts Pond.
Mill Site Chemical Reaeent Spill Containment:
Per the Ground Water Discharge Permit part I.D.3(g): "Mill Site Chemical Reagent Storage - for all
chemical reagents stored at existing storage facilities and held for use in the milling process, the Permittee
shall provide secondary containment to capture and contain all volumes of reagent(s) that might be released
at any individual storage area. . . For any new construction ofreagent storage facilities, said
secondary coniainment and control shall prevent any contact of the spilled or otherwise released
reagent or product with the ground surface."
At a recently constructed containment area, east of the SX building, the dimensions of the containment area
were measured during the November 5, 2008 inspection. The area was measured to be about 3.17' high X
94.5' long X 66.5' wide, with a calculated capacity (including tank volume below the wall) of about
148,840 gallons.
The containment area walls appeared to be concrete with a vertical extension consisting of corrugated
fiberglass panels. The panels appeared to be supported by vertical posts at intervals, connected at the
concrete base and laterally to adjacent panels by a golden colored adhesive. This area shown on a map
from the Storm Water Best Management Plan (SWBMPP) appears to be at or near the sodium chlorate
storage area.
There were three tanks enclosed in the above area. DUSA staff informed me that this was a raffinate and
SX feed tank area, and provided information that indicated the two larger tanks had a combined capacity of
122,350 gallons, and the smaller organic scavenger tank, which was not in current service, had a capacity
of 54,500 gallons.
It therefore appears that the spill containment capacity may be adequate for the storage conditions of
November 5, 2008, so long as the organic scavenger tank remains empty. However, if the scavenger tank
is filled, the capacity of the containment may not be adequate "to capture and contain all volumes of
reagent(s) that might be released at any individual storage area . . ."
Therefore, we request the following information regarding this containment:
1. The dimensions, capacity and the reagent(s) used in these tanks.
2- A detailed complete plumbing layout for the above tank containment area.
3. Justification of why the containment constructed complies with the requirements of
Part I.D.3 (g) of the Permit.
Separately, we request
4. An updated current map of all reagent tank areas showing the current tanks.
Include tank capacities and reagents stored in the respective tanks.
Mr. Steven Landau
Engineering Module 75E
December 17,2008
Page 3
CeIl 4A Solution Discharee
On November 5, 2008, DRC staff observed that initial solutions were being discharged into the southwest
corner of Cell 4A.. Per the O&M Plan, the discharge pipe is to be routed down the Splash Pad prcvided in
the southwest corner of the Cell to protect the FML and the piping. The piping extends onto a solution
barge, as shown in Photo I below.
Piping running onto the solutions barge, in the
southwest corner of Cell 4A. The discharge piping
as shown appears to have been installed to the left,
or north of the darker splash pad.
In photo no. 1 above, the piping to the barge appears to have been installed off the splash pad. If so,
this does not conform to the Cell4A O&M Plan (Cell Operations, p.3).
Please explain and justify how the circumstances observed on November 51 2008 are compliant with
the approved O&M Plan, or alternatively provide a plan and schedule for how DUSA will return to
compliance with the O&M Plan requirements.
By an email I received from you on December 8, 2008, you committed to fully respond to this letter in
writing, on or before 45 days after receipt. If you have any questions or comments on this inspection,
please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
David A. Rupp, P.E.
Geotechnical Services Section
DAR:LBM: dr
F:\drupp\DUSA\lnspections\DMT 2007-9\2008 Module 75E Xmtl Ltrl2-17-08.doc
File: IUC 034{r-
{&oer'aL'ab
Photo 1.
DEN **f)&M
MINES
Denlson Mines (USA) Corp.
1050 17ih Street, Suite 950
Denver, CO 80265
USA
Tel : 303 62S7798
Fax : [phone] .
www.denisonmlnes.com
July 15,2009
Mr. Dane Finerfrock
Executive Secretary
Utah Radiation Control Board
State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Radiation Control
168 North 1950 West
Salt Lake Ciry, Utah 84114-4850
Dear Mr. Finerfrock:
Re: UDEQ Correspondence of May 28,2009-White Mesa Mill
Site Tank Layout and Update
Pursuant to LIDEQ correspondence dated May 28, 2009 (and received by Denison on June 1,2009)
please find attached an update to the Site Tank Layout Mapping which was submitted to UDEQ on
April 28, 20A9. The update provides additional descriptions of the chemical content for mixed-content
tanks. In addition, some tank labeling was revised for accuracy and two additional maps are included
to provide similar information relative to the newly-constructed Alternate Feed Circuit.
If you should have any questions or require further information, please contact me.
Yours very truly,
zbD^_,
DnNrsoru nllrNes (USA) Conp.
SrrvnN D. Lnxneu
MaNlcnn, ENvIRoNMENTAL Arr,lms
.D
EG
I6JE6F
oEI
U
E
=Eo
tEo.xE
o
=-s)
cocuUe
&!c6F
.eco
E
E
ctl3Eolj
E
ofE5
troc!oorll
Jc6F
!
&!ts!ilEIf,*
'r1
1EGFta,oqxt
E)1'o
E
oE
oo
Ed
6't
o
E
coco
ocoJIsFtro
oEItlol
!c6F1'oouxvt
EJ1!ncE
ooEo
0,t
0,o
Eo
EoI&.E6F
n0g
to
Eo
6!lxo
dgI 9ob I'FoEqfi.S 6 a,E oE :E tEHe$ 5!; E€EEs HG i E i; :
Hfr€ f€€;fi E
EIE,E g?ifE I
g$f EgfEiE EE
f,gg ,EaEEEE. gs
ggEEfi$EE$EfuEE
EooG
ol,lt
&
o(ooui
oESar7ErY;i#t7,trTolc{aoo{ol6
E;t.'
=;@=d@H$UIc'6s'9
+
;l El slElgs s+€;
rsrglHfliei*EE
E lstvae+t+'r+o-
ir.-',
/
:;r; il{-r q\o
SS i'\,-\ \Gt, t-Jrtx
EsE -€3
Edm oN c(trn Ed ffi T E
o
f
o
o
xa9oU
u0c,3)coxLtt
uo,cE''5o
=
o--
EFH
J
-"L 6519r. (,<- El$B
EEIE
=1ol
EIJIrlol:l
sl
=l>l
l,IEl6rEo
EOE9>6
g
5oEo
d3
EoodoucNs(J
-,*l\|
o
6(,
lrtF.
^ode66 Eoo.goi3oE dq,
JolJooi+
d.m
.EEoEE
6Go(,(, ?No Vdd E
NrO =flolnl
oo
oE,:ouOCJL6:(9
EsE€
cil<Fl
Noo
E19
co(orn.tim
o
G
=t
s
gf .B
EI${sr'+\oco
x2* iits6 t,.=F eBE Y.E8 Sr}V,.\-f(,(JrN
E*;!?
gEl
lolo,
&tclolgl
6lElxlol
oo,c
=f!oc
.9
r!LP
.!n
.E
:o
E:DG60E<
oEJo64o.9+ga
0C'r(Jd
Z-
!uoOl
=r--t6toa
ou0
Er \ gEl. i + cB\--l ,o t)a+II
=Iolx
_51
-:zlcl.olFI
EI<l
-lEI
..rlolud(EI6-l
5lolxl!I-rl-vl
EIolhrl
PIol+tl,J1l
.ral
=tcol
:l
>lrl
-clrlolzl
a)!og
TEbP
5Ets$ga.
Alternate Feed Circuit
I
'i
l+lat-
!:
l+l'.
19'-9'
t---'Pi E
iE IO
L"
I
l_-_,_
f'?
Es
P
b-! 8- -;.rl+FEE
_= P
i-? a-+e l^t
a?
ETgE
IJ
P5 pt
EE ig
/Pre I
FilE I
P3
5BiB8-;7
I5
IE
E
3H
Eq,B
E
I
XH
E6iE?*e'
\ s! lotE
9-'-E:.$
,- *=* .- *- ., ,; =;Hg; EE; E; *; ET !: 13I-
-EE
.";E :f; fiE i* ;f PE!E id ;a EE gi Ef; If,?i ii ti fii "+ ea ie90 !o lro'-o a 4'i* aeii * $fii t"E cr tE $ E'* 5o 6o '- - t : YrE;eii i + ! n
3
,q -e<8
E:Sqcd'-8sIo&
a- ;FB-)
.'K
--__-__hqrr-r-I 6!
#i#lrw-'
)w-trq -,-.--ffif-=::--.--.
ts? g{:It F -P 8ti'E- i-'r.qE 'ii
P
E
dF
'tE liie-O-a-
iE IEE
f r t-i-
*q-;j
s l+;
?E !"g'
i8
fi-rru Q
ta--ll$
Tl(-llrs t
EE
fiEA
---1*t
t-.I;
Iil iTai9"-l[laFE '"q
l,-'l ,li
A6
-0'
xI
a
I
E
t5'
BI
Ir- Ilr,lsl8 tqlm Igltr AlBtlvloIOlzlaDl{lnlclol=lolz
?eE
iE;499r: q
EE e.
z
9
',S
irtEEiffr
!Hfir'pt
zo,{
IC9IioE,,>o
=co=z!
F-
Alternate Feed Circuit: Tank and Contents Kev
Tank Capacity (gal.) Chemical Make-up
North Pad Tanks
JSJS 10,000 Filter Aid, Dissolved Uranium, Sodium Chlorate, Sulfuric Acid
IE;l|$ 3,000 FilterAid, AcidicWater
TK 111A 16,000 Ammonia, Dissolved Uranium, Sodium Chlorate, Sulfuric Acid
TK 1118 16,000 Ammonia, Dissolved Uranium, Sodium Chlorate, Sulfuric Acid
TK 112 10,000 Dissolved Uranium, Sulfuric Acid
TK 114 10,000 Filter Aid, Acidic Water
South Pad Tanks
X1O1 4,500 Soda Ash, Hydrogen Peroxide, Suspended UF4
TK 102 10,000 Sodium Carbonate
TK 103 10,000 Soda Ash, Hydrogen Peroxide, Sodium Hydroxide, Dissolved UF4,
Filter Aid
TK 104 10,000 Soda Ash, Hydrogen Peroxide, Sodium Hydroxide, Dissolved UF4,
Filter Aid
TK 105 10,000 Soda Ash, Sodium Hydroxide, Dissolved Fluorides
fi({06 1,000 Water, Filter Aid
4ffi19f". 3.000 Filter Aid, Precipitated Uranium, Water
nlzF licolr9 X-q
I
I9
Iz
1;llIr
i
i
tt
i=t-
irrf;tfl
lg
l! ili'r3
li
,'
It
il
' lrt!:'j i
:<gi"tI
PEHrIf
8'-O' J-J'
irl
E:
zl9
AIi
g
"tg
ie+o
#i-r- l*x i, I{ lq
J tt l'_i#'ii I$ \8,s.i-l It iiliBElr -_li I q
E -rl_jHl_^ ;:E-d--(By!
-*tT-e x I.iu 'i lsEt hw''-l
+]@_,
lx-roJ t
6 I l'r.ik
L. J:*,lm
"r[
r-'l-j--lltI
E;i4.egC
L'::9'
9-ry:l- .
3;8
FAA
PopIe
ar Euq: -.
L "-, ..1
,"F*]
'G
{ltE
EEET
:HHl"Pt
0ha!o6EO2-o->c ={a h
=! MYaep85>c o;T Eo6c,{>I:,o
)
DEN,roJ)//
MINES
*z*TDrnrsox MrNns (USA) Conr.
Steven D. Landau
Manager, Environmental Affairs
Cc Ron F. Hochstein
Harold R. Roberts
David C. Frydenlund
David E. Turk
rIo L )s-q-59 l.1t-lS
Odren laeo (UtA) GoG
folo fm $rt t trda tto
OeitYr?, GO tOA
ut
Td: t6lI.7lll
7u: lCltl0.lt$
w.lalsu*tr.con
April28,2009
Sent Via Electronic Mail (PDF) and Federal Express
Dane L. Finerfrock, Executive Secretary
Utah Radiation Control Board
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
168 North 1950 West
P.O. Box 144810
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4810
Dear Mr.
Re: White Mesa Mill-2008 Engineering Inspection Module 75E
DRC Confirmatory Action Letter Dated March 26,2009
Pursuant to the above-captioned DRC Confirmatory Action Letter please find enclosed the
revised inspection form ("Monthly Inspection Data") constituting page 25 of the DMT
Monitoring Plan whereby the term "Sedimentation Pond" has been replaced by the descriptor
"Roberts Pond". Also enclosed (and as requested by DRC in its Confirmatory Action Letter) is
an updated current map of all Mill reagent areas showing the current tanks, their capacities and
the materials stored in those tanks.
If you should have any questions regarding the information provided with this letter please
contact me.
Yours very truly,
APPENDTX A (CONT.)
MONTIILY INSPECTION DATA
Inspector:
Date:
1. Slurry Pipeline:
Pipe Thickness:
2. Diversion Ditches and Diversion Berm:
(To be measured only during periods when the Mill is operating)
Observation:
Diversion Ditches:
Sloughing
Erosion
Undesirable
Vegetation
Obstruction of
Flow
Diversion Berm:
Stability Issues
Signs of Distress
Comments:
Diversion Ditch I
_yes no
yes no
yes no
_yes no
Diversion Ditch 2 Diversion Ditch 3 Diversion Berm 2
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no ves.
_yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
3. Summary of Activities Around Roberts Pond:
t<t-t-
l>l-l(D
10,l-rloI=lrh-lnt<lolcl,+
!{O)=SD6!-Ng'66) r
9L
F11O-.u :.S6'rUroo
ht'.qp\\N!\scTi ;;tg I r6)=o= o-a o3E'J-d l-
r*E Esileo3 16'
N,*\-/o5 ,oB E3- +ou"i6)o9tf
=@
=._o-fcro
-oo
oo
(hx
@
=._o-
=m
l-----ln
-H-Bls xHE ,\J
oo
i(r*:BE
w=o
HEEvt=fi-H e-E
oY;
oCLE F7J= NUr -@+I ri6- 6i'i 6)'".i oJ--{ -ofd
NtN n'HuL/sXB goi!'o o
6)o_
n ri alf-o J.J N lL(o o NloP 5 llxroNul66)6)6)l=9PP
fr
o-
=?o;ooo6q6oE
n
o
Fovoo
3
€o
o
oE
o
69.Ef o3r-ll
ol
I
vcgro
voo3
fooE
3
6)roo
f_- ,*
tsDo@o,_
oo
Oo
o^ll
6
6oo
=6
-.to
f
NPNuN
6l
P--lI9t
A
I
F<@o@l
BA6Eo39r
o@
Uf?n€V9At
!h.:- oco
-u00O!(f
Er
-l l-s $
t__Jt__l
onre a'5ts'*(
94 3 \
\
\\-
ot)
NI5ot3tsd
sg
>Eooo_o
E
3
CL
3.f.
o,
6'f
@
E.
E)
OQ
+
€oo
,auo@og
Glo--f
-E ,^.
H9 * ( )05: \ -/
d
!O'9+d&@o6't to;:
o
!ds38=-^O
!lo
qE'd&o
-Z
o
",f,)dDEFSilS
ffia$sE5
Denbon Mines (USA) Corp.
1050 tTth Street Suite 950
Donr6r, CO 80265
USA
Tel : [phone]
Fax :[phone]
wwwdenigonmines.com
February 5,2009
Sent YIA Electronic Mail (PDF) and Federal Express
Mr. Dane Finerfrock
Executive Secretary
Utah Radiation Control Board
State of Utah Departnent of Environmental Quality
168 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City, Utatr 84114-5850
Dear Mr. Finerfrock:
Re: Division of Radiation Control Findings and Request for Information Pertaining to the
Divisions Inspection of the White Mesa MiIl on November 5, 2008
In accordance with correspondence dated Decernber 17, 200.8, and received by Denison on
Decerrber 22,20A8, information responsive to the Division's Findings and Inforrnation Request
pertaining to an inspection conducted by Mr. David Rupp of the Division on November 5, 2008
is presented below. The Departments specific information request is provided in italics,
followed by Denison's re$ponse to that information request:
Mill Site Chemical Reagent Spill Containment: Ra.{finate and SX Fegd TankArea:
We IUDEQ] request the-foilowin? information regardin? this containment:
I. The dimensiorts, capacity and the reagent(s) used in these tanks
Denison Response:
The information requested is shown on the table below:
Diameter: 35 ft
Height: 17 ft.
solverd extraition raffinate waste
stream containing zulfuric acid and
SX FeedTank Diameter:21fr..54,4AO gal-
Diameter = 10 ft
Height = 7 ft..4,1 l0 gal.
scavenged organic solutions from the
solvent extraction circuit containing
amines, alcohols and kerosene
2, A detailed complete plumbing layout for the above tank containment area
Denison Response:
See attached Figure 1.
i. Justification of why the containment constructed complies with the requirements of Part
1.D.3(g of the Permit.
Denison Responsg_:
The containment facilities at the Mill have been designed and constructed in accordance with the
provisions of 40 CFR 112.8 pertainingto Spill Prevention, Contol, and Countenneasure Plan
requirements for onshore facilities, which states at Sectionl12.B(c)(2), that the owrer or operator
of an onshore facility shall:
Construct all bulk storage tank installations (except mobile refuelers) so that you
provide a secondary means of containment for the entire capacity of the largest
slngle container and suflicient freeboard to contain precipitation [emphasis
adrled]. You must ensure that diked areas are sufficiently impervious to contain
discharged oiI. Dikes, containme,nt curbs, and pits are cornmonly employed for
this purpose. You may also use an alternative system consisting of a drainage
trench enclosure that must be arranged so that any discharge will terminate and be
safely confined in a facility catchment basin or holding pond.
Denison maintains that the SPCC rules contemplate that the containment must be large enough to
contain fluids should a tank be compromised, and that the risk of more than one tank failing at
the same time in a multiple tank containment is sufficiently low that containment capacity need
only be large enough to accommodate the single largest tank. It is Denison's position that
fulfilling ttre SPCC requirements is appropriate and sufficient to "capture and contain all
volumes of reagent(s) that might be released". More specifically, the volume of the material that
might be released at any one time is the individual tank failure scenario contemplated by EPA's
rule(s).
4. An updated currerit map of all reagent tank areas showing the current tanks. Inctude tank
capacities and reagents stored.
Denis_on ReEronse:
The Environmental Deparhnent at the Mill implernented an inventory update of Mill site tank
information and associated mapping during the first week of December, 2008. This process
includes determination of the capacity in each outdoor storage vessel, the reagent contained,
marking of the tanks and an update of site mapping to depict the capacity and contents of each of
these vessels. This process is approximately 40 o/o complete. It is anticipated that the tank
inventory, markirtg and mapping project will be completed by March 3l,2OAg, at which time a
current map including the capacity and reagent information wilt be submitted to the Division.
OEN[$$ffiryJJ
fb{B0dES
Cell 4A Solution Discharee:
In photo no.I above fincluded in the inspection findingsJ, the piping to the barge appears to
have been installed olf the splash pad. If so this does not conform to the Cell 4A O& M Plan
(Cell Operations, pj). Please explain and justify how the circumstances observed on November
5, 2008 are compliant with the approved O& M Plan, or alternatively provide a plan and
schedulefor how DUSA will return to compliancewith the O& M Plan requirements.
Denison Response:
Subsequent to the November 5, 2008 inspection, Denison extended the barge ramp up the Cell
4,A. side slope (and on the splash pad) to the crest of the Cell ernbanhnent, conforming with the
Cell O & M Plan requirements. (See Attached Photo).
If you should have any questions regarding this information, please contact me.
Yours verytruly,
"hzZ^-'DnNrsox Mrxrs (USA) Conr.
Steven D. Landau
Manager, Environmental Affairs
Cc Ron Hochstein
Harold Roberts
David Frydenlund
David Turk
$E*,xes$#3JJ
&TIftIF$
!oll
E:EL
PU
Poz!EoF.
q,uEo,
(ou
olPIolzl
o,
IE3roo,(ul!
LoboC.yoc>l!lEFU,Jl
Jo
(oJ
bo'a
E
(oo
Co
E
.g(o
CoL)
JtrfoFEoolJ-x.n