DRC-2012-001032 - 0901a068802a4b99

DRC-2012-001032
DENISO
MINES
Denison Mines Corp.
6425 S. Highway 191, PO Box 809
Blanding, UT 84511
USA
Tel: [phone]
Fax:[phone]
www.denisonmines.com
VIA EMAIL AND FEDERAL EXPRESS
January 12, 2012
Mr. Rusty Lundberg
Executive Secretary
Utati Division of Radiation Control
195 Nortti 1950 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850
Re: Transmittal of Memorandum of Agreement for Services of URS Corporation - Taslcs
Associated with License Renewal. Reclamation Plan and Cover Design, and Infiltration
Contaminant Transport Model
Dear Mr. Lundberg:
Enclosed are two tiard copies, signed by Denison, of ttie Memorandum of Agreement regarding ttie
services of URS Corporation in connection witti the License Renewal Application, Draft Radioactive
Material License, Cover Design and Reclamation Plan and Infiltration Contaminant Transport Model
for Wtiite Mesa Mill.
Please return one fully signed copy to Denison.
If you stiould tiave any questions regarding ttiis transmittal, please contact me.
Yours ve^v tn
Da\ff6V(jj. Frydenlund
Vice Presidefit, Regulatory Affairs and Counsel
DENISON MINES (USA) CORP.
cc: Ron F. Hoctistein
Harold R. Roberts
Jo Ann S. Tischiler
Harold Roberts
David E. Turk
Mictiael Zody
Denison Central Files
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
AND
DENISON MINES (USA) CORP.
I. General
The Utah Division of Radiation Gontroi (DRG) and Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (DUSA) hereby
enter into this Memorandum of Agreement (MOA).
A. DUSA and its affiliates own and operate a uranium mill tailings facility near Blanding, Utah.
B. This MOA pertains to project tasks associated with the following:
1) DUSA License Renewal Application dated February, 2007.
2) DUSA review ofthe Draft Radioactive Material License (Amendment #5)
3) DUSA/DRG meeting on September 1, 2011.
4) DUSA/DRG meeting on September 14, 2011
5) Cover Design and Reclamation Plan Rev. 5.0, and the March 31, 2010 Revised
Infiltration Contaminate Transport Model (IGTM)
G. This agreement may be extended or modified to include other identified project tasks or phases
of activity, if expressly agreed to in writing by both parties to this agreement at least 30 days
prior to its expiration date.
D. Per discussion during a meeting between DRG and DUSA on September 1, 2011, it was agreed
that 3 options would be made available to DUSA related to the Draft Renewal License
(amendment #5). In another meeting held on September 14, 2011, DUSA chose Option 2 (No
future tailings cells will be constructed by DUSA until an appropriate cover design is approved
by the Executive Secretary). In addition, DUSA proposed a change to what would be required
for the IGTM Model Report, i.e. the Report will be limited to an infiltration analysis only.
E. The DRG disagreed with a reduced version ofthe IGTM Model Report for the proposed cover
design and the Executive Secretary decided that Option 2 will continue to require DRC's review
of a full IGTM Model Report, including both inflltration and contaminant transport analysis.
F. As set out in License Condition 9.11, no future tailing cells will be constructed by DUSA (i.e.,
construction of the engineered liner system and dikes will not commence) until: 1) An
appropriate cover design is approved by the Executive Secretary, pursuant to License Condition
9.11, and 2) The surety is updated to reflect the design and construction costs ofthe approved
cover design. After the September 14, 2011 meeting a follow up e-mail was sent to DUSA that
specified that ''Under no circumstances shall the Revised Surety be less than $18,777,388, which
was approved by the Executive Secretary on December 20, 2010. " DUSA submitted the Cover
Design and Reclamation Plan Rev. 5.0 on September 29, 2011. At the time of the submittal,
DUSA also submitted an interim revised surety estimate for the design and construction ofthe
proposed cover design for DRG review and approval. DUSA claims the interim revised surety
estimate represented DUSA's good faith estimate of the actual costs of the design and
construction of the proposed cover. The DRC conducted a cursory review of parts ofthe
submittal, which showed that the surety for proposed reclamation was actually less
($17,708,939) than the $18,777,388 previously approved by the Executive Secretary. Therefore,
12/27/2011, Rev. 0 Page 1
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
AND
DENISON MINES (USA) CORP.
the DRC will not accept this revised Surety. Surety for the White Mesa Uranium Mill will
remain at a minimum of $18,777,388 until the IGTM Report and Reclamation Plan (Revisions
4.0 and 5.0) are approved.
Review of the Cover Design, Reclamation Plan Rev. 5.0, and the March 31, 2010 Revised IGTM
will be completed by a DRC consultant. DRC and DUSA are signing this MOA in order to fund
the DRC consultant to complete the work in a timely manner to meet the agreed upon deadlines
between DRC and DUSA set out below. Once the Cover Design, Reclamation Plan Rev. 5.0,
and an IGTM Report are approved, DUSA shall submit a final revised Surety that incorporates
the approved design and construction of the proposed cover.
G. The Executive Secretary has acknowledged that, although the construction of the engineered
liner system and dikes shall not commence until the conditions referred to in F. above have been
satisfied, Denison will be able to perform, at its own risk and upon receipt of any other required
approvals, ground preparation, archaeological field work, cell excavation and other activities
prior to and in anticipation of such construction activities. The Executive Secretary may, at his
discretion, determine that permitting activities for any new tailings ceils may commence prior to
the conditions referred to in F above if he is satisfied that sufficient progress has been made in
satisfying such conditions.
II. Duration
This MOA will become effective immediately upon signature by DUSA and DRC.
This MOA will expire on December 30, 2013.
III. Agreement
Per this MOA DRC agrees to:
A. Engage the services of URS Corporation to review the Cover Design, Reclamation Plan Rev. 5.0,
dated September, 2011; and the March 31, 2010 Revised IGTM under the current contract (State
Contract No. 116259). URS efforts in this regard will generally follow the activities outlined in
Attachments 1 and 2, below.
B. Provide DUSA with:
1) Interrogatories based on URS Corp review of the IGTM, Reclamation Plan and Cover
Design.
2) A cost estimate regarding the Cover Design, Reclamation Plan Rev. 5.0, and the March 31,
2010, revised IGTM Report, and any revisions to such cost estimate.
3) Any URS invoices for services rendered on this project, including hour's expended, hourly
rates and job classification of URS staff involved, and a breakdown of any other expenses
incurred during project completion.
12/27/2011, Rev. 0 Page 2
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
AND
DENISON MINES (USA) CORP.
C. Bill DUSA for URS work efforts in completion of the total project for reviewing the Cover
Design, Reclamation Plan Rev. 5.0, and the March 31, 2010 Revised IGTM Report. This
agreement may be amended, for any reason, after consent by both parties.
DUSA Agrees to:
Provide DRG with timely payment of any invoice for URS Corporation consulting services related to
completion of the activities in accordance with the scope of work and cost estimates set out in
Attachments 1 and 2 hereto, or such revised scope of work or cost estimates, if any, that are
approved in advance by both DUSA and DRC.
Both DRC and DUSA Agree to the following schedule and timing commitments:
1) The first round of interrogatories referred to in item III B.l) above, for both the review of the
IGTM and the Reclamation Plan Rev. 5.0 and Cover Design, shall be provided to DUSA
within 60 calendar days from the date of execution of this Agreement by the Director
Division of Radiation Control;
2) DUSA will respond to the first round of interrogatories within 60 calendar days of receipt
thereof, unless, based on the nature and extent of the interrogatories, both parties, acting
reasonably, agree that a later date would be reasonable in the circumstances;
3) DRG will respond to DUSA's response to the first round of interrogatories within 30
calendar days of receipt thereof, unless, based on the nature and extent ofthe response, both
parties, acting reasonably, agree that a later date would be reasonable in the circumstances;
and
4) Thereafter, each of DUSA and DRC shall respond to subsequent rounds of interrogatories
and responses thereto, as the case may be, within 30 calendar days of receipt thereof, unless,
based on the nature and extent of the interrogatories or responses, both parties, acting
reasonably, agree that a later date would be reasonable in the circumstances.
SIGNATURES:
Rusty Lundberg, Director
Division of Radiation Control
Authorized Representative
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
JZ . ZO/Z
Date Date ^
12/27/2011, Rev. 0 Page 3
Attachment 1
Tasks: Infiltration Contaminate Transport Modeling Report
URS will provide the following technical reviews and prepare and submit a set of formal interrogatories related to
the revised Infiltration and Contaminant Transport Model (ICTM) Report dated March 2010. URS will also
review related supporting correspondence and documents listed below.
URS will involve professionals experienced with analytical and performance issues at the White Mesa facility and
with expertise related to the analyses being reviewed. URS will also mobilize subject matter experts in this
review, including both a geochemical modeler and a botanist experienced in plant succession in the arid/semi-arid
westem U.S.
URS's technical support to the ICTM Report review will include performance of the following tasks:
1. Review Background Documents: URS will review the following existing information furnished by the
DRC related to review ofthe November 2007 ICTM:
• MHW 2007. Inflltration and Contaminant Transport Modeling Report, White Mesa Mill Site,
Blanding, Utah - Denison Mines (USA) Corp. MHW Americas, Inc., November 2007 (285 pp.)
• Utah DEQ 2009. Technical Memorandum dated January 13, 2009: Infiltration and Contaminant
Transport Modeling Report, White Mesa Mill Site, Blanding, UT, Received November 21, 2007: DRC
Review Memo - Memo from Tom Rushing to Loren Morton (51 pp. - 32 pp. narrative plus
attachments)
• Utah DEQ , DRC Letter to DUSA dated February 2, 2009: White Mesa Uranium Mill, Ground Water
Discharge Permit No. UGW370004, Infiltration and Contaminant Transport Model Report: DRC
Review Comments, Request for Additional Information (8 pp.).
• Loren Morton e-mail to DUSA dated September 3, 2009: Denison Mines: Further Thought(s) on
Meeting Yesterday - Radon Control Issues (1 p.)
• DRC 2009. Letter to DUSA dated November 16, 2009: White Mesa Uranium Mill, Ground Water
Discharge Permit No. UGW370004, Infiltration and Contaminant Transport Model Report:
Confirmatory Action Letter Regarding Deliverables (2 pp.)
• Oliver 2009. Revised [Meeting] Minutes, dated November 18, 2009, for March 31, 2009 meeting
between Denison Mines, DRC, and MWH concerning White Mesa ICTM- prepared by Douglas
Oliver of MHW Americas (13 pp.)
• MWH Submittal to DRC dated December 1, 2009: Revised Reponses to the Utah DRC's February 2,
2009 Comments on DUSA November 2007 Infiltration and Contaminant Transport Report (36 pp.)
2. Review Revised ICTM Report: URS will review the most recent ICTM report (MHW 2010): Revised
Infiltration and Contaminant Transport Modeling Report, White Mesa Mill Site, Blanding, Utah -
Denison Mines (USA) Corp. MHW Americas, Inc., March 2010 (522 pp.)
Information to be reviewed in Task 2 will include, but not be limited to the following:
o Input Data/Pathways Review: URS will review data packages and baseline information assembled to
support preparation ofthe ICTM Report.
o Model Development Review: URS will review the conceptual site model to ensure that it adequately
represents the range of processes expected to occur at the site. The review will focus on interactions
among the various sub-models and determine the appropriateness of the mathematical representations
12/27/2011, Rev. 0 Page 4
Attachment 1
Tasks: Infiltration Contaminate Transport Modeling Report
of physical and chemical processes related to radionuclide release, and transport in the subsurface and
surface environment (e.g., groundwater contamination, radon emissions, etc.).
o Modeling Analyses Review: URS will review the methods and computer models used to implement
the conceptual model of the tailings management cells area closure design and site. URS will
evaluate the computer models/component models used in the ICTM process and the assumptions used
for modeling radionuclide releases from the waste and transport through envirormiental pathways,
such as air and groundwater. URS will evaluate time -dependent parameters and how site and waste
characteristics may evolve through time.
o Background and Data Review: URS will review and provide input on the appropriateness and
completeness of the background data and input documentation provided to support the ICTM.
o Analysis of Model Predictions: URS will review and assess the completeness of the documentation
provided for demonstrating analysis of performance and regulatory compliance.
Attend Meeting and Prepare and Submit Meeting Minutes: Following its review of the ICTM and all
related documents, URS personnel (2) will attend one meeting in person with UDRC and DUSA
representatives, and a third URS person will participate in the meeting via teleconferencing. Following
the meeting, URS will prepare and submit to UDRC meeting notes, in the form of a Draft Memorandum
ofMeeting Minutes to summarize items discussed, agreements reached, and issues resolved, together with
action items and agreed schedules.
Prepare and Submit Draft and Final Interrogatories: Following review of the Revised ICTM Report and
related correspondence and documents, URS will prepare and submit to UDRC Draft Interrogatories on
the Revised ICTM Report to document the review findings, identify technical issues requiring resolution,
and to request additional information from DUSA to further support the modeling approaches and results
and the proposed altemative closure cover design. URS will then address UDRC's comments on the Draft
Interrogatories and will finalize the interrogatories and submit them to UDRC for transmittal to DUSA.
Review Responses to Round 1 Interrogatories: Upon receipt of DUSA's responses to the submitted
Round 1 Interrogatories, URS will review the responses to determine whether all issues addressed in the
interrogatories have been adequately resolved so that they can be accepted.
Prepare Closeout Technical Memorandum: On the assumption that all issues are satisfactorily resolved
by DUSA's Round 1 responses, URS will prepare a closeout Technical Memorandum to document
relevant activities, analyses, results, conclusions, and justifications forthe administrative record.
Deliverables and Schedule:
1. Draft and Final Interrogatories - URS will prepare and submit Draft Round 1 Interrogatories to UDRC
within 20 working days of receipt of authorization from UDRC to proceed with the review effort. Within
5 working days of receiving UDRC's comments on Draft Round 1 Interrogatories, URS will submit Final
Round 1 Interrogatories to UDRC.
2. Meeting Minutes - URS will prepare and submit to UDRC Draft Meeting Minutes no later than two days
following the meeting with UDRC and DUSA personnel. URS will finalize and submit Final Meeting
12/27/2011, Rev. 0 Page 5
Attachment 1
Tasks: Infiltration Contaminate Transport Modeling Report
Minutes that address UDRC's, and, if requested by UDRC, DUSA's comments on the Draft Meeting
Minutes.
3. Review of Round 1 Responses - URS will confirm a schedule for completing review ofthe Round 1
Responses and preparing and submitting a Closeout Technical Memorandum once the magnitude and
complexity of the information to be reviewed is known. For purposes of this Scope of Work and cost
estimate, it has been assumed that URS would be able to complete its review within 10 working days of
receiving the Round 1 Responses.
4. Closeout Technical Memorandum - Subsequent to completing the response review, URS will prepare a
Closeout Technical Memorandum documenting activities, analyses, results, conclusions, and
justifications relating to URS' review of the March 2010 ICTM report for the administrative record. URS
will confirm a schedule for preparing the Memorandum once the magnitude and complexity of the
information to be reviewed is known. For purposes of this Scope of Work and cost estimate, it has been
assumed that URS would be able to complete the Memorandum within 5 working days of completion of
its review of the Round 1 responses.
Travel:
No travel by URS personnel outside the Salt Lake City area is required in conjunction with performance of this
scope of services.
Additional Comments:
1. It is assumed that DUSA's responses to Round 1 Interrogatories will adequately and satisfactorily address
all issues raised in Round 1 Interrogatories and that no additional rounds of interrogatories will be
necessary.
2. It is expected that it will be necessary to revise or modify the Radioactive Materials License and/or
Groundwater Permit as a result of this review. Although no allowance has been made in this proposal for
costs associated with this process, related activities would include preparation of a Statement of Basis;
revisions to the Radioactive Materials License and/or Groundwater Permit; and receiving and responding
to public comments. When the exact extent of such revisions has been determined, URS will, at UDRC's
request, submit a proposal to complete activities related to supporting the amendment process.
3. The relative levels of effort committed by Messrs. Merrell and Luellen will be determined as the work is
conducted, and depending on the needs of the topics being evaluated. Their hourly rates are identical and
any shift in relative effort will have no effect on estimated cost.
4. URS will conduct and coordinate its review of the Inflltration and Contaminant Transport Modeling
Report with the review of Revision 5.0 of the Reclamation Plan, addressed in a separate Proposal.
Estimated Effort and Cost:
Based on the Scope of Work described above, URS identified those professional individuals who can best
contribute to this effort and has estimated levels of effort and costs associated with this review and preparation of
interrogatories. These estimates are summarized in Table 1. The hourly rates used in Table 1 are those stated in
URS' contract with the State of Utah, escalated by 3 percent for work commencing after September 30, 2011, as
specified in URS' contract with the State of Utah.
12/27/2011, Rev. 0 Page 6
Attachment 2
Tasks: Reclamation Plan, Revision 5.0
Table 1. Effort and Cost to Review DUSA's ICTM dated March, 2010.
Activity
Effort (hours)
Cost Activity Baird Merrell Luellen Kelly Geochemist Botanist Totals Cost
Taskl. Initially Review
Background Documents 4 4 4 3 2 1 18 $
2,718
Task 2A. Review in Detail Main
Report (MWH 2010) 5 16 14 2 2 1 40 $
6,270
Task 28. Review in Detail
Appendices (MWH 2010) 0 21 22 12 24 20 99 $15,015
Task 3. Participate in Meeting
with UDEQ/DUSA 4 6 6 0 2 2 20 $ 3,289
Task 4. Prepare Draft and Final
Round 1 Interrogatories 8 24 24 12 8 4 80 $11,882
Task 5. Review Round 1
Interrogatory Responses 4 12 12 6 4 2 40 $
5,941
Task 6. Prepare Closeout
Tectinical Memorandum 4 12 12 6 2 1 37 $
5,407
Total Effort (hr) 29 95 94 41 44 31 334
Cost $5,384 $14,815 $14,660 $2,653 $8,636 $4,374 $50,522
12/27/2011, Rev.O Page 7
Attachment 2
Tasks: Reclamation Plan, Revision 5.0
URS will provide the following technical reviews and prepare and submit a set of fomial interrogatories related to
the White Mesa Reclamation Plan, Revision 5.0, dated September, 2011. URS will also review related supporting
correspondence and documents listed below.
URS will involve professionals experienced with design and performance issues at the White Mesa facility and
with expertise related to the analyses being reviewed. URS's technical support to the review ofthe Reclamation
Plan, Revision 5.0 will include performance of the following tasks:
7. Review Reclamation Plan, Revision 5.0, dated September, 2011. Review of newly revised information
will focus on, but not be limited to, ensuring that the issues raised in Interrogatory Rounds 1 and 1A
(dealing with the Division's review of Reclamation Plan Revision 4.0) are adequately addressed, by
Reclamation Plan, revision 5.0. In addition, review applicable NRC and related guidance on tailings cover
designs and reclamation plans is adequately addressed; review of revised information provided regarding
the mill decommissioning plan and revised cost estimates for reclamation; review of new information
provided on perched groundwater, seeps, and springs; review of the revised (evapotranspiration-based)
cover system design; and review of revised technical specifications and revised construction quality
assurance/construction quality control procedures for facility reclamation.
8. Prepare and Submit Draft and Final Interrogatories: Following review of the Reclamation Plan
Revision 5.0, URS will prepare and submit to UDRC Draft Interrogatories on the Reclamation Plan to
document the review findings, identify technical issues requiring resolution, and to request additional
information from DUSA to further support the reclamation plan and the revised cover system design.
URS will then address UDRC's comments on the Draft Interrogatories and will finalize the
interrogatories and submit them to UDRC for transmittal to DUSA.
9. Review Responses to Round 1 Interrogatories: Upon receipt of DUSA's responses to the submitted
Round 1 Interrogatories, URS will review the responses to determine whether all issues addressed in the
interrogatories have been adequately resolved so that they can be accepted.
10. Prepare Closeout Technical Memorandum: On the assumption that all issues are satisfactorily resolved
by DUSA's Round 1 responses, URS will prepare a closeout Technical Memorandum to document
relevant activities, analyses, results, conclusions, and justifications forthe administrative record.
Deliverables and Schedule:
5. Draft and Final Interrogatories - URS will prepare and submit Draft Round 1 Interrogatories to UDRC
within 20 working days of receipt of authorization from UDRC to proceed with the review effort. Within
5 working days of receiving UDRC's comments on Draft Round 1 Interrogatories, URS will submit Final
Round 1 Interrogatories to UDRC.
6. Review of Round 1 Responses - URS will confirm a schedule for completing review ofthe Round 1
Responses and preparing and submitting a Closeout Technical Memorandum once the magnitude and
complexity of the information to be reviewed is known. For purposes ofthis Scope of Work and cost
estimate, it has been assumed that URS would be able to complete its review within 10 working days of
receiving the Round 1 Responses.
7. Closeout Technical Memorandum - Subsequent to completing the response review, URS will prepare a
Closeout Technical Memorandum documenting activities, analyses, results, conclusions, and
justifications relating to URS' review of Reclamation Plan, Revision 5.0 for the administrative record.
URS will confirm a schedule for preparing the Memorandum once the magnitude and complexity ofthe
information to be reviewed is known. For purposes of this Scope of Work and cost estimate, it has been
12/27/2011, Rev. 0 Page 8
Attachment 2
Tasks: Reclamation Plan, Revision 5.0
assumed that URS would be able to complete the Memorandum within 5 working days of completing its
review of the Round 1 responses.
Travel:
No travel by URS personnel outside the Salt Lake City area is required in conjunction with performance ofthis
scope of services.
Additional Comments:
5. It is assumed that DUSA's responses to Round 1 Interrogatories will adequately and satisfactorily address
all issues raised in Round 1 Interrogatories and that no additional rounds of interrogatories will be
necessary.
6. It is expected that it will be necessary to revise or modify the Radioactive Materials License and/or
Groundwater Permit as a result of this review. Although no allowance has been made in this proposal for
costs associated with this process, related activities would include preparation of a Statement of Basis;
revisions to the Radioactive Materials License and/or Groundwater Permit; and receiving and responding
to public comments. When the exact extent of such revisions has been determined, URS will, at UDRC's
request, submit a proposal to complete activities related to supporting the amendment process.
7. URS will conduct and coordinate its review of Revision 5.0 of the Reclamation Plan with the review of
the Inflltration and Contaminant Transport Modeling Report, addressed in a separate Proposal.
Estimated Effort and Cost:
Based on the Scope of Work described above, URS identified those professional individuals who can best
contribute to this effort and has estimated levels of effort and costs associated with this review and preparation of
interrogatories. These estimates are summarized in Table 1. The hourly rates used in Table 1 are those stated in
URS' contract with the State of Utah, escalated by 3 percent for work commencing after September 30, 2011, as
specified in URS' contract with the State of Utah.
12/27/2011, Rev. 0 Page 9
Attachment 2
Tasks: Reclamation Plan, Revision 5.0
Activity
Table 2. Effort and Cost to Review DUSA's White Mesa Reclamation Plan, Revision 5.0.
Activity
Effort (hours)
Activity Baird Brown Jones Merrell Nielson HIbbard Redden Luellen Kelly Totals Cost
Task IA. Review
RecPlan Rev 5.0
30 28 16 12 8 69 18 181
$26,186
Task 1B. Review
Rev 5 for Info to
Address
Interrogatories
Rnd 1 &IA
6 12 4 22
$3,244
Task IC. Review
Updated NRC
Guidance
1 1
$156
Task 2. Prepare
Round 1
Interrogatories
16 8 4 4 4 4 8 40 8 96
$13,414
Task 3. Review
Round 1
Responses
4 8 4 2 8 4 30
$4,080
Task 4. Prepare
TechMemo
Closeout
16 4 2 2 4 8 32 16 84
$11,330
Total Effort (hr) 72 48 26 18 18 4 16 162 50 414
Cost $13,367 $6,060 $2,786 $2,807 $3,533 $323 $1,035 $25,264 $3,236 $58,411
12/27/2011, Rev.O Page 10
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
AND
DENISON MINES (USA) CORP.
I. General
The Utah Division of Radiation Control (DRC) and Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (DUSA) hereby
enter into this Memorandum of Agreement (MOA).
A. DUSA and its affiliates own and operate a uranium mill tailings facility near Blanding, Utah.
B. This MOA pertains to project tasks associated with the following:
1) DUSA License Renewal Application dated February, 2007.
2) DUSA review of the Draft Radioactive Material License (Amendment #5)
3) DUSA/DRG meeting on September 1,2011.
4) DUSA/DRG meeting on September 14, 2011
5) Cover Design and Reclamation Plan Rev. 5.0, and the March 31, 2010 Revised
Inflltration Contaminate Transport Model (ICTM)
C. This agreement may be extended or modified to include other identified project tasks or phases
of activity, if expressly agreed to in writing by both parties to this agreement at least 30 days
prior to its expiration date.
D. Per discussion during a meeting between DRC and DUSA on September 1, 2011, it was agreed
that 3 options would be made available to DUSA related to the Draft Renewal License
(amendment #5). In another meeting held on September 14, 2011, DUSA chose Option 2 (No
future tailings cells will be constructed by DUSA until an appropriate cover design is approved
by the Executive Secretary). In addition, DUSA proposed a change to what would be required
for the ICTM Model Report, i.e. the Report will be limited to an inflltration analysis only.
E. The DRC disagreed with a reduced version of the ICTM Model Report for the proposed cover
design and the Executive Secretary decided that Option 2 will continue to require DRC's review
of a full ICTM Model Report, including both inflltration and contaminant transport analysis.
F. As set out in License Condition 9.11, no future tailing cells will be constructed by DUSA (i.e.,
construction of the engineered liner system and dikes will not commence) until: 1) An
appropriate cover design is approved by the Executive Secretary, pursuant to License Condition
9.11, and 2) The surety is updated to reflect the design and construction costs of the approved
cover design. After the September 14, 2011 meeting a follow up e-mail was sent to DUSA that
specified that ''Under no circumstances shall the Revised Surety be less than $18,777,388, which
was approved by the Executive Secretary on December 20, 2010. " DUSA submitted the Cover
Design and Reclamation Plan Rev. 5.0 on September 29, 2011. At the time of the submittal,
DUSA also submitted an interim revised surety estimate for the design and construction ofthe
proposed cover design for DRC review and approval. DUSA claims the interim revised surety
estimate represented DUSA's good faith estimate of the actual costs of the design and
construction of the proposed cover. The DRC conducted a cursory review of parts ofthe
submittal, which showed that the surety for proposed reclamation was actually less
($17,708,939) than the $18,777,388 previously approved by the Executive Secretary. Therefore,
12/27/2011, Rev. 0 Page 1
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
AND
DENISON MINES (USA) CORP.
the DRC will not accept this revised Surety. Surety for the White Mesa Uranium Mill will
remain at a minimum of $18,777,388 until the ICTM Report and Reclamation Plan (Revisions
4.0 and 5.0) are approved.
Review of the Cover Design, Reclamation Plan Rev. 5.0, and the March 31, 2010 Revised ICTM
will be completed by a DRC consultant. DRG and DUSA are signing this MOA in order to fund
the DRG consultant to complete the work in a timely manner to meet the agreed upon deadlines
between DRC and DUSA set out below. Once the Cover Design, Reclamation Plan Rev. 5.0,
and an ICTM Report are approved, DUSA shall submit a final revised Surety that incorporates
the approved design and construction of the proposed cover.
G. The Executive Secretary has acknowledged that, although the construction of the engineered
liner system and dikes shall not commence until the conditions referred to in F. above have been
satisfied, Denison will be able to perform, at its own risk and upon receipt of any other required
approvals, ground preparation, archaeological field work, cell excavation and other activities
prior to and in anticipation of such construction activities. The Executive Secretary may, at his
discretion, determine that permitting activities for any new tailings cells may commence prior to
the conditions referred to in F above if he is satisfied that sufficient progress has been made in
satisfying such conditions.
II. Duration
This MOA will become effective immediately upon signature by DUSA and DRC.
This MOA will expire on December 30, 2013.
III. Agreement
Per this MOA DRC agrees to:
A. Engage the services of URS Corporation to review the Cover Design, Reclamation Plan Rev. 5.0,
dated September, 2011; and the March 31, 2010 Revised ICTM underthe current contract (State
Contract No. 116259). URS efforts in this regard will generally follow the activities outlined in
Attachments 1 and 2, below.
B. Provide DUSA with:
1) Interrogatories based on URS Corp review ofthe ICTM, Reclamation Plan and Cover
Design.
2) A cost estimate regarding the Cover Design, Reclamation Plan Rev. 5.0, and the March 31,
2010, revised ICTM Report, and any revisions to such cost estimate.
3) Any URS invoices for services rendered on this project, including hour's expended, hourly
rates and job classification of URS staff involved, and a breakdovw of any other expenses
incurred during project completion.
12/27/2011, Rev. 0 Page 2
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
AND
DENISON MFNES (USA) CORP.
Bill DUSA for URS work efforts in completion of the total project for reviewing the Cover
Design, Reclamation Plan Rev. 5.0, and the March 31, 2010 Revised ICTM Report. This
agreement may be amended, for any reason, after consent by both parties.
DUSA Agrees to:
Provide DRC with timely payment of any invoice for URS Corporation consulting services related to
completion of the activities in accordance with the scope of work and cost estimates set out in
Attachments 1 and 2 hereto, or such revised scope of work or cost estimates, if any, that are
approved in advance by both DUSA and DRC.
Both DRC and DUSA Agree to the following schedule and timing commitments:
1) The first round of interrogatories referred to in item III B.l) above, for both the review of the
ICTM and the Reclamation Plan Rev. 5.0 and Cover Design, shall be provided to DUSA
within 60 calendar days from the date of execution of this Agreement by the Director
Division of Radiation Control;
2) DUSA will respond to the first round of interrogatories within 60 calendar days of receipt
thereof, unless, based on the nature and extent of the interrogatories, both parties, acting
reasonably, agree that a later date would be reasonable in the circumstances;
3) DRC will respond to DUSA's response to the first round of interrogatories within 30
calendar days of receipt thereof, unless, based on the nature and extent of the response, both
parties, acting reasonably, agree that a later date would be reasonable in the circumstances;
and
4) Thereafter, each of DUSA and DRC shall respond to subsequent rounds of interrogatories
and responses thereto, as the case may be, within 30 calendar days of receipt thereof, unless,
based on the nature and extent of the interrogatories or responses, both parties, acting
reasonably, agree that a later date would be reasonable in the circumstances.
SIGNATURES:
Rusty Lundberg, Director
Division of Radiation Control
Date
Authorized Representative
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
Date ^ ^
12/27/2011, Rev. 0 Page 3
Attachment 1
Tasks: Infiltration Contaminate Transport Modeling Report
URS will provide the following technical reviews and prepare and submit a set of formal interrogatories related to
the revised Inflltration and Contaminant Transport Model (ICTM) Report dated March 2010. URS will also
review related supporting correspondence and documents listed below.
URS will involve professionals experienced with analytical and performance issues at the White Mesa facility and
with expertise related to the analyses being reviewed. URS will also mobilize subject matter experts in this
review, including both a geochemical modeler and a botanist experienced in plant succession in the arid/semi-arid
westem U.S.
URS's technical support to the ICTM Report review will include performance of the following tasks:
1. Review Background Documents: URS will review the following existing information fumished by the
DRC related to review ofthe November 2007 ICTM:
• MHW 2007. Infiltration and Contaminant Transport Modeling Report, White Mesa Mill Site,
Blanding, Utah - Denison Mines (USA) Corp. MHW Americas, Inc., November 2007 (285 pp.)
• Utah DEQ 2009. Technical Memorandum dated January 13, 2009: Inflltration and Contaminant
Transport Modeling Report, White Mesa Mill Site, Blanding, UT, Received November 21, 2007: DRC
Review Memo - Memo from Tom Rushing to Loren Morton (51 pp. - 32 pp. narrative plus
attachments)
• Utah DEQ , DRC Letter to DUSA dated Februaty 2, 2009: White Mesa Uranium Mill, Ground Water
Discharge Permit No. UGW370004, Infiltration and Contaminant Transport Model Report: DRC
Review Comments, Request for Additional Information (8 pp.).
• Loren Morton e-mail to DUSA dated September 3, 2009: Denison Mines: Further Thought(s) on
Meeting Yesterday - Radon Control Issues (1 p.)
• DRC 2009. Letter to DUSA dated November 16, 2009: White Mesa Uranium Mill, Ground Water
Discharge Permit No. UGW370004, Infiltration and Contaminant Transport Model Report:
Confirmatory Action Letter Regarding Deliverables (2 pp.)
• Oliver 2009. Revised [Meeting] Minutes, dated November 18, 2009, for March 31, 2009 meeting
between Denison Mines, DRC, and MWH concerning White Mesa ICTM- prepared by Douglas
Oliver of MHW Americas (13 pp.)
• MWH Submittal to DRC dated December 1, 2009: Revised Reponses to the Utah DRC's February 2,
2009 Comments on DUSA November 2007 Infiltration and Contaminant Transport Report (36 pp.)
2. Review Revised ICTM Report: URS will review the most recent ICTM report (MHW 2010): Revised
Infiltration and Contaminant Transport Modeling Report, White Mesa Mill Site, Blanding, Utah -
Denison Mines (USA) Corp. MHW Americas, Inc., March 2010 (522 pp.)
Information to be reviewed in Task 2 will include, but not be limited to the following:
o Input Data/Pathways Review: URS will review data packages and baseline information assembled to
support preparation of the ICTM Report.
o Model Development Review: URS will review the conceptual site model to ensure that it adequately
represents the range of processes expected to occur at the site. The review will focus on interactions
among the various sub-models and determine the appropriateness of the mathematical representations
12/27/2011, Rev. 0 Page 4
Attachment 1
Tasks: Infiltration Contaminate Transport Modeling Report
of physical and chemical processes related to radionuclide release, and transport in the subsurface and
surface environment (e.g., groundwater contamination, radon emissions, etc.).
o Modeling Analyses Review: URS will review the methods and computer models used to implement
the conceptual model of the tailings management cells area closure design and site. URS will
evaluate the computer models/component models used in the ICTM process and the assumptions used
for modeling radionuclide releases from the waste and transport through environmental pathways,
such as air and groundwater. URS will evaluate time -dependent parameters and how site and waste
characteristics may evolve through time.
o Background and Data Review: URS will review and provide input on the appropriateness and
completeness of the background data and input documentation provided to support the ICTM.
o Analysis of Model Predictions: URS will review and assess the completeness of the documentation
provided for demonstrating analysis of performance and regulatory compliance.
Attend Meeting and Prepare and Submit Meeting Minutes: Following its review of the ICTM and all
related documents, URS personnel (2) will attend one meeting in person with UDRC and DUSA
representatives, and a third URS person will participate in the meeting via teleconferencing. Following
the meeting, URS will prepare and submit to UDRC meeting notes, in the form of a Draft Memorandum
ofMeeting Minutes to summarize items discussed, agreements reached, and issues resolved, together with
action items and agreed schedules.
Prepare and Submit Draft and Final Interrogatories: Following review of the Revised ICTM Report and
related correspondence and documents, URS will prepare and submit to UDRC Draft Interrogatories on
the Revised ICTM Report to document the review findings, identify technical issues requiring resolution,
and to request additional information from DUSA to further support the modeling approaches and results
and the proposed altemative closure cover design. URS will then address UDRC's comments on the Draft
Interrogatories and will finalize the interrogatories and submit them to UDRC for transmittal to DUSA.
Review Responses to Round 1 Interrogatories: Upon receipt of DUSA's responses to the submitted
Round 1 Interrogatories, URS will review the responses to determine whether all issues addressed in the
interrogatories have been adequately resolved so that they can be accepted.
Prepare Closeout Technical Memorandum: On the assumption that all issues are satisfactorily resolved
by DUSA's Round 1 responses, URS will prepare a closeout Technical Memorandum to document
relevant activities, analyses, results, conclusions, and justifications for the administrative record.
Deliverables and Schedule:
1. Draft and Final Interrogatories - URS will prepare and submit Draft Round 1 Interrogatories to UDRC
within 20 working days of receipt of authorization from UDRC to proceed with the review effort. Within
5 working days of receiving UDRC's comments on Draft Round 1 Interrogatories, URS will submit Final
Round 1 Interrogatories to UDRC.
2. Meeting Minutes - URS will prepare and submit to UDRC Draft Meeting Minutes no later than two days
following the meeting with UDRC and DUSA personnel. URS will finalize and submit Final Meeting
12/27/2011, Rev. 0 Page 5
Attachment 1
Tasks: Infiltration Contaminate Transport Modeling Report
Minutes that address UDRC's, and, if requested by UDRC, DUSA's comments on the Draft Meeting
Minutes.
3. Review of Round 1 Responses - URS will confirm a schedule for completing review of the Round 1
Responses and preparing and submitting a Closeout Technical Memorandum once the magnitude and
complexity of the information to be reviewed is known. For purposes of this Scope of Work and cost
estimate, it has been assumed that URS would be able to complete its review within 10 working days of
receiving the Round 1 Responses.
4. Closeout Technical Memorandum - Subsequent to completing the response review, URS will prepare a
Closeout Technical Memorandum documenting activities, analyses, results, conclusions, and
justifications relating to URS' review of the March 2010 ICTM report for the administrative record. URS
will confirm a schedule for preparing the Memorandum once the magnitude and complexity of the
information to be reviewed is known. For purposes of this Scope of Work and cost estimate, it has been
assumed that URS would be able to complete the Memorandum within 5 working days of completion of
its review of the Round 1 responses.
Travel:
No travel by URS personnel outside the Salt Lake City area is required in conjunction with performance of this
scope of services.
Additional Comments:
1. It is assumed that DUSA's responses to Round 1 Interrogatories will adequately and satisfactorily address
all issues raised in Round 1 Interrogatories and that no additional rounds of interrogatories will be
necessary.
2. It is expected that it will be necessary to revise or modify the Radioactive Materials License and/or
Groundwater Permit as a resuh of this review. Although no allowance has been made in this proposal for
costs associated with this process, related activities would include preparation of a Statement of Basis;
revisions to the Radioactive Materials License and/or Groundwater Permit; and receiving and responding
to public comments. When the exact extent of such revisions has been determined, URS will, at UDRC's
request, submit a proposal to complete activities related to supporting the amendment process.
3. The relative levels of effort committed by Messrs. Merrell and Luellen will be determined as the work is
conducted, and depending on the needs of the topics being evaluated. Their hourly rates are identical and
any shift in relative effort will have no effect on estimated cost.
4. URS will conduct and coordinate its review of the Infiltration and Contaminant Transport Modeling
Report with the review of Revision 5.0 of the Reclamation Plan, addressed in a separate Proposal.
Estimated Effort and Cost:
Based on the Scope of Work described above, URS identified those professional individuals who can best
contribute to this effort and has estimated levels of effort and costs associated with this review and preparation of
interrogatories. These estimates are summarized in Table 1. The hourly rates used in Table 1 are those stated in
URS' contract with the State of Utah, escalated by 3 percent for work commencing after September 30, 2011, as
specified in URS' contract with the State of Utah.
12/27/2011, Rev. 0 Page 6
Attachment 2
Tasks: Reclamation Plan, Revision 5.0
Table 1. Effort and Cost to Review DUSA's ICTM dated March, 2010.
Activity
Effort ( hours)
Cost Activity Baird Merrell Luellen Kelly Geochemist Botanist Totals Cost
Task 1. Initially Review
Background Documents 4 4 4 3 2 1 18 $
2,718
Task 2A. Review in Detail Main
Report (MWH 2010) 5 16 14 2 2 1 40 $
6,270
Task 2B. Review in Detail
Appendices (MWH 2010) 0 21 22 12 24 20 99 $15,015
Task 3. Participate in Meeting
with UDEQ/DUSA 4 6 6 0 2 2 20 $ 3,289
Task 4. Prepare Draft and Final
Round 1 Interrogatories 8 24 24 12 8 4 80 $11,882
Task 5. Review Round 1
Interrogatory Responses 4 12 12 6 4 2 40 $
5,941
Task 6. Prepare Closeout
Technical Memorandum 4 12 12 6 2 1 37 $
5,407
Total Effort (hr) 29 95 94 41 44 31 334
Cost $5,384 $14,815 $14,660 $2,653 $8,636 $4,374 $50,522
12/27/2011, Rev.O Page 7
Attachment 2
Tasks: Reclamation Plan, Revision 5.0
URS will provide the following technical reviews and prepare and submit a set of formal interrogatories related to
the White Mesa Reclamation Plan, Revision 5.0, dated September, 2011. URS will also review related supporting
correspondence and documents listed below.
URS will involve professionals experienced with design and performance issues at the White Mesa facility and
with expertise related to the analyses being reviewed. URS's technical support to the review of the Reclamation
Plan, Revision 5.0 will include performance of the following tasks:
7. Review Reclamation Plan, Revision 5.0, dated September, 2011. Review of newly revised information
will focus on, but not be limited to, ensuring that the issues raised in Interrogatory Rounds 1 and 1A
(dealing with the Division's review of Reclamation Plan Revision 4.0) are adequately addressed, by
Reclamation Plan, revision 5.0. In addition, review applicable NRC and related guidance on tailings cover
designs and reclamation plans is adequately addressed; review of revised information provided regarding
the mill decommissioning plan and revised cost estimates for reclamation; review of new information
provided on perched groundwater, seeps, and springs; review of the revised (evapotranspiration-based)
cover system design; and review of revised technical specifications and revised construction quality
assurance/construction quality control procedures for facility reclamation.
8. Prepare and Submit Draft and Final Interrogatories: Following review of the Reclamation Plan
Revision 5.0, URS will prepare and submit to UDRC Draft Interrogatories on the Reclamation Plan to
document the review findings, identify technical issues requiring resolution, and to request additional
information from DUSA to further support the reclamation plan and the revised cover system design.
URS will then address UDRC's comments on the Draft Interrogatories and will finalize the
interrogatories and submit them to UDRC for transmittal to DUSA.
9. Review Responses to Round 1 Interrogatories: Upon receipt of DUSA's responses to the submitted
Round 1 Interrogatories, URS will review the responses to determine whether all issues addressed in the
interrogatories have been adequately resolved so that they can be accepted.
10. Prepare Closeout Technical Memorandum: On the assumption that all issues are satisfactorily resolved
by DUSA's Round 1 responses, URS will prepare a closeout Technical Memorandum to document
relevant activities, analyses, results, conclusions, and justifications for the administrative record.
Deliverables and Schedule:
5. Draft and Final Interrogatories - URS will prepare and submit Draft Round 1 Interrogatories to UDRC
within 20 working days of receipt of authorization from UDRC to proceed with the review effort. Within
5 working days of receiving UDRC's comments on Draft Round 1 Interrogatories, URS will submit Final
Round 1 Interrogatories to UDRC.
6. Review of Round 1 Responses - URS will confirm a schedule for completing review ofthe Round 1
Responses and preparing and submitting a Closeout Technical Memorandum once the magnitude and
complexity of the information to be reviewed is known. For purposes of this Scope of Work and cost
estimate, it has been assumed that URS would be able to complete its review within 10 working days of
receiving the Round 1 Responses.
7. Closeout Technical Memorandum - Subsequent to completing the response review, URS will prepare a
Closeout Technical Memorandum documenting activities, analyses, results, conclusions, and
justifications relating to URS' review of Reclamation Plan, Revision 5.0 for the administrative record.
URS will confirm a schedule for preparing the Memorandum once the magnitude and complexity of the
information to be reviewed is known. For purposes of this Scope of Work and cost estimate, it has been
12/27/2011, Rev. 0 Page 8
Attachment 2
Tasks: Reclamation Plan, Revision 5.0
assumed that URS would be able to complete the Memorandum within 5 working days of completing its
review of the Round 1 responses.
Travel:
No travel by URS personnel outside the Salt Lake City area is required in conjunction with performance of this
scope of services.
Additional Comments:
5. It is assumed that DUSA's responses to Round 1 Interrogatories will adequately and satisfactorily address
all issues raised in Round 1 Interrogatories and that no additional rounds of interrogatories will be
necessary.
6. It is expected that it will be necessary to revise or modify the Radioactive Materials License and/or
Groundwater Permit as a result ofthis review. Although no allowance has been made in this proposal for
costs associated with this process, related activities would include preparation of a Statement of Basis;
revisions to the Radioactive Materials License and/or Groundwater Permit; and receiving and responding
to public comments. When the exact extent of such revisions has been determined, URS will, at UDRC's
request, submit a proposal to complete activities related to supporting the amendment process.
7. URS will conduct and coordinate its review of Revision 5.0 of the Reclamation Plan with the review of
the Infiltration and Contaminant Transport Modeling Report, addressed in a separate Proposal.
Estimated Effort and Cost:
Based on the Scope of Work described above, URS identified those professional individuals who can best
contribute to this effort and has estimated levels of effort and costs associated with this review and preparation of
interrogatories. These estimates are summarized in Table 1. The hourly rates used in Table 1 are those stated in
URS' contract with the State of Utah, escalated by 3 percent for work commencing after September 30, 2011, as
specified in URS' contract with the State of Utah.
12/27/2011, Rev. 0 Page 9
Attachment 2
Tasks: Reclamation Plan, Revision 5.0
Activity
Table 2. Effort and Cost to Review DUSA's White Mesa Reclamation Plan, Revision 5.0.
Activity
Effort (hours)
Activity Baird Brown Jones Merrell Nielson Hibbard Redden Luellen Kelly Totals Cost
Task IA. Review
RecPlan Rev 5.0
30 28 16 12 8 69 18 181
$26,186
Task IB. Review
Rev 5 for Info to
Address
Interrogatories
Rnd 1 &IA
6 12 4 22
$3,244
Task IC. Review
Updated NRC
Guidance
1 1
$156
Task 2. Prepare
Round 1
Interrogatories
16 8 4 4 4 4 8 40 8 96
$13,414
Task 3. Review
Round 1
Responses
4 8 4 2 8 4 30
$4,080
Task 4. Prepare
TechMemo
Closeout
16 4 2 2 4 8 32 16 84
$11,330
Total Effort (hr) 72 48 26 18 18 4 16 162 50 414
Cost $13,367 $6,060 $2,786 $2,807 $3,533 $323 $1,035 $25,264 $3,236 $58,411
12/27/2011, Rev.O Page 10