DRC-2011-007745 - 0901a0688029acea

December 21, 2011
VIA E-MAIL AND OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
1050 17th Street, Suite 950
Denver, CO 80265
USA
Tel: [phone]
Fax : [phone]
www.denisonmines.com
Rusty Lundberg, Executive Secretary
Utah Radiation Control Board
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
195 North 1950 West
P.O. Box 144810
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4810
Re: License Renewal - State of Utah Radioactive Materials License No. UT1900479
Mesa Uranium Mill - Comments Provided During Public Comment Period
White
Dear Mr. Lundberg:
Reference is made to the public comment period on the proposed renewal of State of Utah Radioactive
Materials License No. UT 1900479 (the "License") for the White Mesa Uranium Mill (the "Mill") operated
by Denison Mines (USA) Corp. ("Denison").
Enclosed with this letter are copies of the proposed renewal License and the accompanying Safety
Evaluation Report, marked to indicate Denison's suggestions and comments. For ease of review, we
have accepted all of DRC's changes to the existing License and have marked only our proposed
changes to DRC's version of the document.
In reviewing the enclosed documents, please note the following additional information:
1. License
1.1. License Condition ("LC") 9.1. We have suggested wording changes to make LC consistent
with the wording in LC 9.11, which refers to "tailings cells". All of the provisions of LC 9.11 relate to the
cover design for new tailings cells, so LC 9.1 should be consistent with those provisions and similarly
be limited to new tailings cell construction.
1.2. LC 9.5, last paragraph. LC 10.20 obligates the Mill to remediate any groundwater
contamination in accordance with applicable regulations and a schedule approved by the Executive
Secretary. It is not necessary to include anything more detailed in LC 9.5. Moreover, applicable
regulations require that groundwater be remediated before final closure (i.e., transfer of the site to the
long term custodian). Therefore the phrase "for a minimum period of time, after facility closure . . ." is
not accurate. If this phrase is to be kept, it should be changed to read "for a minimum period of time,
after commencement of reclamation . . .", but as suggested, it would be more appropriate to delete the
phrase entirely, as the matter is covered by LC 10.20.
1.3. LC 9.6. As mentioned to you previously, Denison does not have a "Corporate Radiation
Safety Officer", so reference to such a person should be deleted from LC 9.6.
Y:\Radioactive Materials License\10.14.11 RML for public comment\Lr to Exec Sec re RML and SER Comments
12.21.11.doc
Letter to Mr. Rusty Lundberg
December 6, 2011
Page 2
1.4. LC 9.11 B (2). The cover design is based on the ICTM. The Reclamation Plan is not based
on the ICTM, except to the extent it includes the cover design.
1.5. LC 12.3. The language corrects a mistake in the drafting.
1.6. A number of other suggested editorial changes are marked in the enclosed documents, which
are self explanatory.
2. Safety Evaluation Report
2.1. Section 5.5.2.2 Radiation Monitoring - Area. A number of changes are suggested to more
accurately reflect Denison's position and to more accurately cite to previous correspondence.
2.2. Section 5.5.4 Surety. A number of changes have been suggested to more accurately reflect
the course of events. It should be noted that Denison's obligation was to re-evaluate the surety based
on the revised cover design, but that in no event would the surety amount be less than the current
amount. Based on this re-evaluation, which was performed in accordance with applicable guidance,
the estimated cost of the proposed revised cover system is less than the estimated cost of the currently
approved cover system. There should be no question of Denison's good faith in performing this re-
evaluation.
2.3. Section 5.5.5 Reclamation Plan. The language in the Groundwater Discharge Permit does not
include the phrase "(and Reclamation Plan)". Again, Part I.D.8 of the Permit refers only to the cover
design and not to the Reclamation Plan as a whole. By adding that phrase, one may construe this to
mean that the entire Reclamation Plan is subject to the provisions of Part I.D.8 of the Permit.
We have also suggested some changes to the language to better reflect Denison's understanding of
the course of events.
2.4. The remainder of Denison's suggested comments in the SER are self-explanatory.
We would be pleased to discuss any of these comments further with you at your convenience.
Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions or require any further information.
Yours very truly,
DENISO/I MiNEsr(USA) CORP.
David 0. Fry^lenlund
Vice President, Regulatory Affairs and Counsel
cc: Ron F. Hochstein
Harold R. Roberts
Jo Ann S. Tischler
David E. Turk
DENISO
MINES
DRC-05
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
RENEWAL
Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. Title 19, Chapter 3 and the Radiation Control Rules, Utah Administrative
Code R313, and in reliance on statements and representations heretofore made by the licensee
designated below, a license is hereby issued authorizing such licensee to transfer, receive, possess and
use the radioactive material designated below; and to use such radioactive material for the purpose(s)
and at the place(s) designated below. This licensee is subject to all applicable rules, and orders now or
hereafter in effect and to any conditions specified below.
LICENSEE )
1. Name Denison Mines
(USA)
Corp.
)
Address 6425 Highway 191 )
P.O. Box 809
Blanding, UT 84511
3. License Number UTI900479
Amendment #5
4. Expiration Date
December January 1, 20167
(approximate)
5. License Category 2-b
)
6. Radioactive material
(element and mass number)
Natural Uranium
11 (e)2 By-product Material
Approved Altemate Feed
Material
7. Chemical and/or
physical form
Any
Maximum quantity licensee
may possess at any one time
Unlimited
SECTION 9: ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITIONS
9.1 The authorized place of use shall be the licensee's White Mesa uranium milling facility, located
in San Juan County, Utah. The White Mesa uranium mill is located on fee land and mill site
claims, covering approximately 5,415 acres encompassing all or part of Sections 21,22,27,28,
29, 32, and 33 of T37S, R22E, and Sections and 16 of T38S, R22E Salt Lake Base and
Meridian. Mill process and wastewater storage and tailings disposal shall be limited to existing
engineering design, construction, and operation of Tailings Cells 1, 2, 3, 4A and 4B, as
authorized in Part I.D of the Ground Water Discharge Permit No. UGW370004 (hereafter
Permit), issued by the Co-Executive Secretary of the Utah Water Quality Board (Co-Executive
Secretary). New-eConstruction of any new mill process water, wastewater storage, and/or
tailings disposal embanlanontscells is prohibited until after the licensee demonstrates
DRC-05
Page 2 of 21
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT1900479
Amendment #5
compliance with the requirements of License Condition 9.11, and receives prior Executive
Secretary approval. After such approval, this license may be amended to authorize new
construction of new surface impoundments for storage and disposal of mill process water,
wastewater and tailings cells. [Applicable UDRC Amendment: 5 Renewalf
9.2 All written notices and reports to the Executive Secretary required under this license, with the
exception of incident and event notifications under R313-15-1202 and R313-19-50 requiring
telephone notification, shall be addressed to the Executive Secretary, Utah Radiation Control
Board, Utah Department of Environmental Quality, 195 North 1950 West, P.O. Box 144850,
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850. All written submittals to the Executive Secretary shall include
at the time of submittal a searchable electronic copy, as required by R313 -12-111. Incident and
event notifications that require telephone notification shall be made to the Executive Secretary
at [phone] during normal business hours or after hours to the DEQ Duty Officer at (801)
536-4123.
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 5 Renewalf
9.3 The licensee shall conduct operations in accordance with statements, representations, and
conditions contained in the license renewal application submitted by letter to the DRC dated
February 27,2007 as revised by submittals to the DRC dated February 5,2009, April 20,2009,
May 5,2009, August 14,2009, September 14,2009, September 28,2009, November 24,2009
and March 3, 2010, which are hereby incorporated by reference, and for the Standby Trust
Agreement, as amended, except where superseded by license conditions below.
Whenever the word "will" is used in the above referenced documents, it shall denote a
requirement.
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 5 Renewal]
9.4 A. The licensee may, without prior Executive Secretary-approval, and subject to the
conditions specified in Part B of this condition:
(1) Make changes in the facility or process, as presented in the application.
(2) Make changes in the procedures presented in the application.
(3) Conduct tests or experiments not presented in the application.
B. The licensee shall file an application for an amendment to the hcense, unless the
following conditions are satisfied.
(1) The change, test, or experiment does not conflict with any requirement
speciflcally stated in this license, or impair the licensee's ability to meet all
applicable regulations.
DRC-05
Page 3 of 21
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT1900479
Amendment #5
(2) There is no degradation in the essential safety or environmental commitments in
the license application or provided by the approved reclamation plan.
(3) The change, test, or experiment is consistent with the conclusions of actions
analyzed and selected in the NRC Environmental Assessment dated February
1997.
C. The licensee's determinations conceming Part B of this condition shall be made by a
"Safety and Environmental Review Panel (SERP)." The SERP shall consist of a
minimum of three individuals. One member of the SERP shall have expertise in
management and shall be responsible for managerial and financial approval changes;
one member shall have expertise in operations and/or constmction and shall have
responsibility for implementing any operational changes; and, one member shall be the
corporate radiation safety officer (CRSO) or equivalent, with the responsibility of
assuring changes conform to radiation safety and environmental requirements.
Additional members may be included in the SERP as appropriate, to address technical
aspects such as health physics, groundwater hydrology, surface-water hydrology,
specific earth sciences, and other technical disciplines. Temporary members or
permanent members, other than the three above-specified individuals, may be
consultants.
D. The licensee shall maintain records of any changes made pursuant to this condition until
license termination. These records shall include written safety and environmental
evaluations, made by the SERP, that provide the basis for determining that changes are
in compliance with the requirements referred to in Part B of this condition. The licensee
shall fumish, in an annual report to the Executive Secretary, a description of such
changes, tests, or experiments, including a summary of the safety and environmental
evaluation of each. In addition, the licensee shall annually submit to the Executive
Secretary changed pages to the Operations Plan and Reclamation Plan of the approved
license application to reflect changes made under this condition. Annual reports shall
address the previous calendar year and be submitted no later than March 31 each year.
The licensee's SERP shall function in accordance with the standard operating
procedures submitted by letter to the Executive Secretary dated Febmary 27, 2007.
[Applicable UDRC Amendment 3] [Applicable UDRC Amendment: 5 Renewal]
9.5 The licensee shall at all times maintain a financial surety, approved by the Executive Secretary,
consistent with UAC R313-24-4 (1OCFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria 9 and 10, as incorporated by
reference), that is adequate to cover the estimated costs, accomplished by a third party, for
decommissioning and decontamination of the mill and mill site, reclamation of any tailings or
waste disposal areas, groundwater restoration as required by License Condition 10.20, and the
DRC-05
Page 4 of 21
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT 1900479
Amendment #5
long-term surveillance fee. The licensee is prohibited from use and/or operation of any tailings
disposal cell, or related new permanent fixture or facility not already accounted for by the
currently approved surety, without prior submittal and Executive Secretary approval of written
evidence of adequate financial surety. Within 60 calendar days of Executive Secretary approval
ofa revised reclamation/decommissioning plan, the licensee shall submit written evidence ofan
adequate surety regarding the newly approved plan.
Annual updates to the surety amount, required by UAC R313-24-4 (10 CFR 40, Appendix A,
Criteria 9 and 10, as incorporated by reference), shall be submitted for Executive Secretary
approval by March 4 of each year. Within 30 calendar days of Executive Secretary approval of
an annual update of surety cost estimates, the licensee shall submit written evidence of adequate
surety for Executive Secretary approval.
Along with each proposed revision or annual update, the licensee shall submit supporting
documentation showing a breakdown of the costs and the basis for the cost estimates with
adjustments for inflation, maintenance of a minimum 15 percent contingency fee, changes in
engineering plans, activities performed and any other conditions affecting estimated costs for
site closure. The basis for the cost estimate is the current Executive Secretary-approved
reclamation/decommissioning plan or Executive Secretary-approved revisions to the plan and
guidance contained in NUREG-1620, "Standard Review Plan for the Review of a Reclamation
Plan for Mill Tailings Sites under Title II of the Uranium Mill Taihngs Radiation Control Act of
1978."
The currently approved surety instrument, a Performance Bond issued by National Union Fire
Insurance Company in favor of the Executive Secretary, and the associated Standby Trust
Agreement, shall be continuously maintained by the licensee in an amount not less than the
amount currently approved by the Executive Secretary pursuant to the requirements of UAC
R313-24-4 (10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria 9 and 10 as incorporated by reference).
On or before March 4,2012, the annual surety estimate shall also include all costs necessary to
remediate any groundwater contamination required by License Condition 10.20 for a minimum
period of time, after facility closure, to be determined by the Executive Secretary.
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 1 ][Applicable UDRC Amendment 3]
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 5 Renewal]
9.6 Written Standard operating procedures (SOPs) shall be established and followed for all
operational and non-operational activities involving radioactive material. Up-to-date copies of
the SOPs shall incorporate operating instmctions and appropriate safety precautions for licensed
activities. SOPs shall be kept, maintained and made available to employees in the mill area to
which it applies. The written SOPs established shall include activities of the radiation safety
DRC-05
Page 5 of 21
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT1900479
Amendment #5
and environmental monitoring programs, the employee training program, a respirator protection
program, operational procedures, analytical procedures, bioassay analyses, and instmment
calibration.
At least annually, the uranium milling facility Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) shall review and
approve in writing all procedures to determine their continued applicability to the RML-license
conditions, Utah mles and Federal regulations. The Corporate Radiation Safety Officer shall
review and approve written SOPs and subsequent changes to the procedures related all
operational and non operational activities.—Up-to-date copies of all operational and non-
operational SOPs shall be submitted electronically to the Executive Secretary by December 31 st
of each year.
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 5 Renewal]
9.7 As per the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) negotiated by the Utah State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), the NRC
and Energy Fuels Nuclear Inc. (EFN) and ratified on August 20,1979 and as amended on May
3, 1983 and substantially as implemented in NRC License SUA-1358.
Before engaging in any activity not previously assessed bythe Executive Secretary, the licensee
shall administer a cultural resource inventory. All disturbances associated with the proposed
development will be completed in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (as
amended) and its implementing regulations, and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act
(as amended) and its implementing regulations.
In order to ensure that no unapproved disturbance of cultural resources occurs, any work
resulting in the discovery of previously unknown cultural artifacts shall cease. The artifacts shall
be inventoried and evaluated in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act (as
amended), and no disturbance shall occur until the licensee has received authorization from the
Executive Secretary to proceed.
The licensee shall avoid by project design, where feasible, the archaeological sites designated
"contributing" in the report submitted by letter to the NRC dated July 28, 1988. When it is not
feasible to avoid a site designated "contributing" in the report, the licensee shall institute a data
recovery program for that site based on the research design submitted by letter from C. E. Baker
of Energy Fuels Nuclear to Mr. Melvin T. Smith, Utah State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO), dated April 13, 1981.
The licensee shall recover through archaeological excavation all "contributing" sites listed in the
report which are located in or within 100 feet of borrow areas, stockpile areas, constmction
areas, or the perimeter of the reclaimed tailings impoundment. Data recovery fieldwork at each
DRC-05
Page 6 of 21
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT1900479
Amendment #5
site meeting these criteria shall be completed prior to the start of any project related disturbance
within 100 feet of the site, but analysis and report preparation need not be complete.
Additionally, the licensee shall conduct such testing as is required to enable the Executive
Secretary to determine if those sites designated as "Undetermined" in the report and located
within 100 feet of present or knovm future constmction areas are of such significance to warrant
their redesignation as "contributing." In all cases, such testing shall be completed before any
aspect of the undertaking affects a site.
Archaeological contractors shall be approved in writing by the Utah SHPO. The Utah SHPO
will approve an archaeological contractor who meets the minimum standards of the State of
Utah as the principal investigator.
9.8 The licensee is hereby authorized to possess byproduct material in the form of uranium waste
tailings and other uranium byproduct waste generated by the licensee's milling operations
authorized by this license. Mill tailings shall not be transferred from the site without specific
prior approval of the Executive Secretary in the form of a license amendment. The licensee shall
maintain a permanent record of all transfers made under the provisions of this condition.
9.9 The licensee is hereby exempted from the requirements of R313-15-902(5) for areas within the
mill, provided that all entrances to the mill are conspicuously posted in accordance with R313-
15-902(5) and with the words, "Any area within this mill may contain radioactive material".
9.10 Release of ore tmcks and intermodal containers from the restricted area for restricted release
shall be in accordance with Department of Transportations standards set forth in 49 CFR
173.443 or 49 CFR 173.428, as amended. Release of equipment or packages from the restricted
area for unrestricted release shall be in accordance with the NRC Regulatory Guide 1.86
"Termination of Operafing Licenses for Nuclear Reactors" dated June 1974 or the NRC
document "Guidelines for Decontamination of Facilities and Equipment Prior to Release for
Unrestricted Use or Termination of Licenses for Byproduct, Source, or Special Nuclear
Material," dated May 1987, or suitable altemative procedures approved by the Execufive
Secretary prior to any such release.
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 5 Renewal]
9.11 Final Cover Design and Reclamation Plan and Specifications - the licensee shall complete the
following before any new tailings cell constmction at the site:
A. Secure Approval of the Inflltration and Contaminant Transport Modeling (ICTM)
Report - by the Co-Executive Secretary of the Water Quality Board pursuant to the
requirements of Part I.H.2 of the Permit. Said ICTM Report shall demonstrate that the
DRC-05
Page 7 of 21
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT1900479
Amendment #5
final tailings cell cover system design, specifications, and constmction will meet the
long term performance requirements established in Part I.D.8 of the Permit.
B. Submit a Revised Reclamation Plan (Revision 5.0) - on or before October 1, 2011 the
licensee shall submit a Revised Reclamation Plan (Revision 5.0) for Executive Secretary
review and approval. Said revised plan shall:
(1) Provide all engineering design, specifications, constmction, and other details
regarding site closure and a new cover design for the final tailings embankments
(Cells 1, 2, 3, 4A, and 4B), and
(2) Belnclude a cover design that is based upon and jusfified by the ICTM Report that
complies with the requirements of Parts I.H.2 and I.D.8 of the Permit, as approved
by the Co-Executive Secretary.
C. Submit Interim Surety Cost Estimate Report - on or before October 1,2011, the licensee
shall submit a revised surety report for Executive Secretary review and acceptance. Said
report shall include a detailed and comprehensive description and justification for all
unit quantities and unit costs related to site closure and the new cover design to be
proposed under License Condition 9.11 .AB. Under no circumstances shall the revised
interim surety amoimt be less than that already approved by the Executive Secretary on
December 20,2010 ($18,777,388). After Executive Secretary acceptance, the licensee
shall submit written evidence to demonstrate the revised interim surety is fully ftinded
within 60 calendar days of written Executive Secretary acceptance.
D. Reimburse Executive Secretary Review Costs - the licensee shall reimburse the
Executive Secretary for all third-party consultant review costs of the following
documents, and any subsequent submittals determined necessary by the Executive
Secretary:
(1) ICTM Reports - as required by Parts I.H.2 and I.D.8 of the Permit, including but not
limited to the licensee's March 31, 2010 Revised ICTM Report, and
(2) Revised Reclamation Plan (Revision 5.0) and Interim Surety Report - as required by
license conditions 9.11 .A and B, above.
Reimbursement of the above review costs shall be in accordance with a Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA) to include a scope of work, cost estimate, deadlines and a timeline
agreed to by both the licensee and the Executive Secretary.
DRC-05
Page 8 of 21
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT1900479
Amendment #5
E. Submit Final Surety Estimate Report and Evidence of Funding - the licensee shall
submit a final surety cost estimate report for Executive Secretary review and approval,
within 30 calendar days of the following:
(1) Written Executive Secretary approval of the Revised Reclamation Plan (Revision
5.0), and
(2) Written Co-Executive Secretary approval of ICTM Report required by Parts I.H.2
and I.D.8 ofthe Permit, including, but not limited to the March 31, 2010 ICTM
Report.
Upon Executive Secretary approval of the final Surety amount, the licensee shall submit
vritten evidence of the final approved surety amount within 60 calendar days.
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 4] [Applicable UDRC Amendment: 5 Renewal]
9.12 The Licensee shall at all times have a valid groundwater discharge permit issued bv the Co-
Executive Secretarv of the Water Ouaiity Board. No transfer of this License will be approved
unless the Ground Water Ouaiity Discharge Permit is also transferred.
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 5 Renewal]
SECTION 10: OPERATIONAL CONTROLS, LIMITS, AND RESTRICTIONS
10.1 A. The mill production rate shall not exceed 4380 tons of yellowcake per year.
B. The licensee may not dispose of any material on site that is not "byproduct material," as
that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. Section 2014(e)(2) (Atomic Energy Act of 1953,
Section 11(e)(2)).
C. The licensee may not receive or process any altemate feed material without first
applying for and obtaining approval of a license amendment. For any such proposal, the
licensee shall demonstrate that it will comply with Condition 10.1(B). Any such
demonstration shall include:
(1) Demonstration of compliance with the NRC Regulatory Summary 2000-23
Recent Changes to Uranium Recovery Policy, November 30, 2000; and
(2) Demonstration of compliance with the November 22, 1999 Protocol for
Determining Whether Altemate Feed Materials are Listed Hazardous Wastes, as
approved by the Utah Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste on December 7,
1999.
D. Maximum quantities of feed material stored on the mill site, including altemate feed
materials or other ores, shall not exceed the total material storage quantity found in the
DRC-05
Page 9 of 21
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT1900479
Amendment #5
currently approved mill surety pursuant to License Condition 9.5, without prior approval
ofthe Executive Secretary.
E. The licensee may not receive any altemate feed materials or other ores if those materials
would cause the facility to exceed the tailings cell disposal capacity established by the
currently approved tailing cells engineering design and constmction^ reclamation plan
and/or the annual surety report required by License Conditions 9.11, and 9.5,
respectively, without prior approval of the Executive Secretary.
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 2]
10.2 All liquid effluents from mill process buildings, with the exception of sanitary wastes, shall be
retumed to the mill circuit or discharged to the tailings impoundment,
10.3 Freeboard limits, stormwater and wastewater management for the tailings cells shall be
determined as follows:
A. The Freeboard limit for Cell 1 shall be set annually in accordance with the procedures
set out in Section 3.0 to Appendix E of the previously approved NRC license
application, including the January 10, 1990 Drainage Report. Discharge of any surface
water or wastewater from Cell 1 is expressly prohibited.
B. The freeboard limit for Cell 4B shall be recalculated annually in accordance with the
procedures approved by the Executive Secretary Said calculations for freeboard limits
shall be submitted as part of the Annual Technical Evaluation Report (ATER), as
described in Condition 12.2 below.
C. The discharge of any surface water, stormwater or wastewater from Cells 3,4 A, and 4B
shall only be through an Executive Secretary authorized spillway structure.
[Applicable UDRC Amendment 3] [Applicable UDRC Amendment: 4]
10.4 Disposal of material and equipment generated at the mill site shall be conducted as described in
the licensee's submittals to the NRC dated December 12, 1994 and May 23, 1995, with the
following addifion:
A. The maximum lift thickness for materials placed over tailings shall be less than 4-feet
thick. Subsequent lifts shall be less than 2-feet thick. Each lift shall be compacted by
tracking of heavy equipment, such as a Cat D-6, at least 4 times prior to placement of
subsequent lifts.
DRC-05
Page 10 of 21
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT 1900479
Amendment #5
10.5 In accordance with the licensee's submittal to the NRC dated May 20, 1993, the licensee is
hereby authorized to dispose of byproduct material generated at licensed in-situ leach (ISL)
facilities, subject to the following conditions:
A. Disposal of ISL waste is limited to 5000 cubic yards from a single source.
B. All ISL contaminated equipment shall be dismantled, cmshed, or sectioned to minimize
void spaces. Barrels containing waste other than soil or sludges shall be emptied into the
disposal area and the barrels cmshed. Barrels containing soil or sludges shall be verified
by the licensee to be full prior to disposal. Barrels not completely fiill shall be filled with
tailings or soil prior to disposal.
C. All ISL waste shall be buried in Cell No. 3 unless prior written approval is obtained
from the Executive Secretary for altemate burial locations.
D. All disposal activities shall be documented and records thereof maintained on-site. The
documentation shall include descriptions of the ISL waste and the disposal locations, as
well as all actions required by this License condition.
E. The licensee shall also submit for Executive Secretary approval a revised written
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for ISL disposal on or before December 1,2010.
The revised SOP shall describe the documentation required for ISL disposal, which shall
include but is not limited to the following;
(1) The material disposal area must be located on a tailings beach area of the
disposal cell or on an area of the cell that is underlain by tailings sands;
(2) The elevation of the material disposal area will not exceed the plane or grade of
the elevations of the uppermost flexible membrane liner of the tailings cell;
(3) Such ISL byproduct material will be segregated from any mill material and
equipment disposed of in the cells pursuant to License Condition 10.4, and the
ISL byproduct material from each in-situ leach source will be segregated from
the byproduct material from all other in-situ leach sources;
(4) Absence of void space inside barrels disposed, including physical verification
before disposal; and
(5) Detailed engineering drawings which demonstrate:
a. There are at least 4 feet of tailings sands under the bottom of each
disposal area; and
b. The bottom of each disposal area is located at least 12 feet from the sides
or dikes of the tailings cell.
DRC-05
Page 11 of 21
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT1900479
Amendment #5
F. The licensee shall notify the Executive Secretary in writing at least 7 calendar days prior
to the proposed scheduled date for disposal of any byproduct material generated at ISL
facilities in the tailings ceUs.
An annual summary of the amounts of waste disposed of from off-site ISL generators
shall be sent to the Executive Secretary on or before November 1 of each calendar year.
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 4]
10.6 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materials from the Allied Signal
Corporation's Metropolis, Illinois, facility in accordance with the amendment request to the
NRC dated June 15, 1993.
10.7 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from Allied Signal, Inc. of
Metropolis, Illinois, in accordance with the amendment request to the NRC dated September 20,
1996, and amended by letters to the NRC dated October 30, 1996 and November 11, 1996.
10.8 DELETED by DRC 2007, UDRC Amendment: 5 Renewal.
10.9 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from Cabot Performance
Materials' facility near Boyertown, Pennsylvania, in accordance with the amendment request to
the NRC dated April 3, 1997, as amended by submittals to the NRC dated May 19, 1997 and
August 6, 1997.
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 5 Renewal]
10.10 DELETED by DRC 2007, UDRC Amendment: 5 Renewal.
10.11 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from Cameco Corporation's
Blind River and Port Hope facilities, located in Ontario, Canada, in accordance with the
amendment request to the NRC dated June 4, 1998, and by the submittals to the NRC dated
September 14,1998, September 16,1998, September 25,1998, October 7,1998, and October 8,
1998.
However, the licensee is not authorized to receive or process from these facilities, the cmshed
carbon anodes identified in these submittals, either as a separate material or mixed in with
material already approved for receipt or processing.
10.12 DELETED by DRC, UDRC Amendment: 5 Renewal.
10.13 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from the St. Louis Formerly
Utilized Sites Remedial Acfion Program (FUSRAP) site, in accordance with statements.
DRG-05
Page 12 of 21
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT1900479
Amendment #5
representations, and commitments contained in the amendment request to the NRC dated March
2, 1999, and as amended and supplemented by submittals dated June 21, 1999; Jime 29, 1999
(2); and July 8,1999. Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the St. Louis FUSRAP site,
the licensee must make a determination that adequate tailings space is available for the tailings
produced from the processing of this material. This determination shall be made based on a
SERP approved intemal procedure.
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 5 Renewal]
10.14 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from the Linde Formerly
Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site, in accordance with statements,
representations, and commitments contained in the NRC amendment request dated March 16,
2000, and as amended and supplemented by submittals dated April 26, 2000, May 15, 2000,
June 16, 2000, June 19, 2000, and June 23, 2000.
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 5 Renewal]
10.15 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from the W.R. Grace site
located in Chattanooga, Tennessee, in accordance with statements, representations, and
commitments contained in the amendment request to the NRC dated April 12, 2000, as
amended and supplemented by submittals dated April 24, 2000, April 26, 2000, May 5, 2000,
November 16, 2000, and December 18, 2000.
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 5 Renewal]
10.16 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from the Heritage Minerals
Incorporated site, in accordance with statements, representations, and commitments contained in
the amendment request to the NRC dated July 5,2000, and as supplemented by submittals dated
November 16, 2000, and December 18, 2000.
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 5 Renewal]
10.17 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from the Molycorp site located
in Mountain Pass, Califomia, in accordance with statements, representations, and commitments
contained in the amendment request to the NRC dated December 19, 2000, and supplemental
informafion in letters dated January 29, 2001, Febmary 2, 2001, March 20, 2001, August 15,
2001, October 17, 2001, and November 16,2001.
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 5 Renewal]
10.18 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from the Maywood site located
in Maywood, New Jersey, in accordance with statements, representations, and commitments
contained in the amendment requests to the NRC dated June 15,2001, June 22,2001, August 3,
2001, and supplemented by letters dated November 19,2001, December 6,2001, December 10,
2001, March 11, 2002, and July 1, 2002.
DRC-05
Page 13 of 21
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT1900479
Amendment #5
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 5 Renewal]
10.19 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from Ponds 2 and 3 of the
FMRI's Muskogee Facility located in Muskogee, Okalahoma, in accordance with statements,
representations, and commitments contained in the amendment requests and submittals to the
Executive Secretary dated March 7, 2005, June 22, 2005, and April 28, 2006.
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 2] [Applicable UDRC Amendment: 5 Renewal]
10.20 The licensee shall remediate in accordance with applicable mles and regulations any groundwater
contamination found at or near the White Mesa facility in a manner and schedule approved by
the Co-Executive Secretary of the Utah Water Quality Board. Any wastewater or contaminated
groundwater generated, recovered, or produced by a remediation process or activity at the White
Mesa facility shall be 11 e.(2) byproduct material. As of July 1,2011, groundwater contaminants
that require remediation at or near the site include, but are not limited to: chloroform, carbon
tetrachloride, dichloromethane, chloromethane, and nitrate.
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 5 Renewal]
SECTION 11: MONITORING, RECORDING, AND BOOKKEEPING REQUIREMENTS
11.1 The results of sampling, analyses, surveys and monitoring, the results of calibration of
equipment, reports on audits and inspections, all meetings and training courses required by this
license and any subsequent reviews, investigations, and corrective actions, shall be documented.
Unless otherwise specified in the State of Utah regulations all such documentation shall be
maintained for a period of at least five (5) years.
11.2 The licensee shall implement the effluent and environmental monitoring program specified in
Section 5.5 of the renewal application, as amended by the submittal to the NRC dated June 8,
1995, and as revised with the following modifications or additions:
A. Stack sampling shall include a determination of flow rate.
B. Surface water samples shall also be analyzed semiannually for total and dissolved U-nat,
Ra-226, and Th-230, wdth the exception of the Westwater Creek, which shall be
sampled annually for water or sediments and analyzed as above. A sediment sample
shall not be taken in place of a water sample unless a water sample was not available.
C. Groundwater sampling shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements in the
current Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit No. UGW370004.
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
DRC-05
Page 14 of 21
License #UT1900479
Amendment #5
D. With the exception of groundwater sampling the licensee shall utilize lower limits of
detection in accordance with Section 5 of the NRC Regulatory Guide 4.14, as amended,
for analysis of effluent and environmental samples.
E. The inspections performed semiannually of the critical orifice assembly commi tted to
in the submittal to the NRC dated March 15, 1986, shall be documented. The critical
orifice assembly shall be calibrated at least every 2 years against a positive displacement
Roots meter to obtain the required calibration curve.
[Applicable UDRC Amendment 3] [Applicable UDRC Amendment: 5 Renewal]
11.3 The licensee shall implement a monitoring program of the leak detection systems for disposal
Cells 4A and 4B in accordance with requirements of the Permit. The licensee shall also
implement an operation, maintenance, and monitoring program ofthe leak detection systems for
disposal Cells 1, 2, and 3 as follows:
A. The licensee shall maintain all leak detection system piping, including any access pipes,
open, fully functional and free of soil, debris or detritus. All access pipes shall be
capped to prevent infiow of rainwater, soil, debris, or detritus when not in use for
monitoring or pumping. The licensee shall conduct annual video logs of said access
pipes to demonstrate the physical condition of the system. In the event that the licensee
determines any access pipe is blocked, partially blocked, or otherwise not fully
functional, the licensee shall: 1) remove all blockages within 14 calendar days of
discovery, and 2) submit a written report for Executive Secretary approval within 30
calendar days of discovery.
B. The licensee shall measure and record the inches ofwatcr pressure head on the pump
transducer in each of the tailings disposal cell leak detection svstem standpipes on a
weekly basis in a manner approved by the Executive Secretary. The transducer and
pump will be placed as low as reasonably practical in the standpipe as approved by the
Executive Secretary. The system will be set such that tot-the alarm will be triggered
when the transducer senses a pressure of 2 inches of water head or greater, and the pump
will tum on when the transducer senses a water head pressure on the transducer at or
above the level for the cell specified in the following table:
Cell Water Head Pressure on Transducer
Cell 1 12 inches
Cell 2 18 inches
DRC-05
Page 15 of 21
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION GONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT1900479
Amendment #5
Cell 3 12 inches
C. If fluid is present in the leak detecfion system (LDS) of any cell above the water head
pressure on the transducer specified in the table set out in License Condition 11.3B, the
licensee shall:
1. Pump the fluid from the LDS immediately upon discovery, to a water head pressure
on the transducer at or below the level for the cell specified in the table set out in
License Condition 11.3B.
2. Immediately commence and continue daily monitoring of LDS water head pressure
on the transducer, and volumes removed, until otherwise approved by the Executive
Secretary.
3. Maintain the water head pressure on the transducer at or below the level for the cell
specified in the table set out in License Condition 11.3(B).
4. Retum any LDS fluid pumped to an approved disposal cell.
D. If fluid is pumped from a LDS, the licensee shall calculate the flow rate either by a flow
meter or by dividing the recorded volume of fluid recovered by the elapsed time since
fluid was last pumped or increases in the LDS fluid levels were recorded, whichever is
the more recent. The licensee shall document the results of this calculation.
E. Ifthe flow rate calculated under License Condition 11.3(D) is greater than zero for 30
continuous calendar days, but does not exceed one gallon per minute, the licensee shall,
unless it determines the root cause of the failure through other means, reduce the
solution level in the Cell by up to 12 inches elevation to determine whether or not the
reduction in solution elevation materially reduces the flow rate. If the flow rate is
materially reduced, this will be considered to indicate that one or more liner repairs are
required above the reduced elevation level, where exposure to wave action and the
elements are most likely to have impacted the liner. If any such repairs are required, the
licensee will submit a plan and schedule for Executive Secretary approval for an
investigation of the liner above such reduced solution level and for completion of such
repairs.
Ifthe licensee is unable to determine the root cause of the leak after following the steps
described in this license condition, the licensee shall meet with the Executive Secretary
to determine whether or not any further actions are warranted and practicable in the
circumstances.
DRC-05
Page 16 of 21
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT1900479
Amendment #5
F. Either of the following events shall constitute a violation of this License: 1. Failure to
maintain the LDS fluid level elevation pursuant to License Condition 11.3(C)(1), above,
and such failure is not rectified within two days after discovery; or 2. the flow rate
calculated under License Condition 11.3(D) is equal to or greater than one gallon per
minute. Immediately upon determination of such an event, the licensee shall:
(1) Evaluate the root cause of the event and take appropriate and timely actions to
mitigate the event and any consequent potential impacts;
(2) Continue to measure and record LDS water head pressure on the transducer, and
removed volume measurements daily until otherwise approved by the Executive
Secretary; and
(3) Notify the Executive Secretary by telephone within 48 hours, in accordance with
License Condition 9.2, and submit a written report, for Executive Secretary
approval, within 30 calendar days of said telephone notice, in accordance with
License Condition 9.2. The written report shall include a description of the
mitigative action(s) taken and a discussion of the mitigative action results. In
the event that mitigative actions have yet to be taken, the written report will
include a detailed workplan and schedule.
G. In addition to the reporting required in License Condition 11.3(A), (B), (C), and (D), all
sampling, analysis, and evaluation of LDS fluids shall be documented and all records
retained onsite until license termination for Executive Secretary inspection.
[Applicable UDRC Amendment 3] [Applicable UDRC Amendment: 4]
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 5 Renewal]
11.4 Annually, the licensee shall collect, during mill operations, a set of air samples covering eight
hours of sampling, at a high collection flow rate (i.e., greater than or equal to 40 liters per
minute), in routinely or frequently occupied areas of the mill. These samples shall be analyzed
for gross alpha. In addition, with each change in mill feed material or at least annually, the
licensee shall analyze the mill feed or production product for U-nat, Th-230, Ra-226, and Pb-
210 and use the analysis results to assess the fundamental constituent composition of air sample
particulates.
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 5 Renewal]
11.5 Calibration of in-plant air and radiation monitoring equipment shall be performed as specified in
the license renewal application, under Section 3.0 of the "Radiation Protection Procedures
Manual," with the exception that in-plant air sampling equipment shall be calibrated at least
quarterly and air sampling equipment checks shall be documented.
DRG-05
Page 17 of 21
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT1900479
Amendment #5
11.6 The licensee shall perform an annual ALARA audit of the radiation safety program in
accordance with the NRC Regulatory Guide 8.31.
11.7 Settlement Monitoring Standard Operating Procedure - the licensee shall submit for Executive
Secretary approval a written Settlement Monitoring Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on or
before December 1, 2010. The proposed SOP shall describe methods for monitoring vertical
settlement in the tailings management cell areas and for recording and documenting settlement
monitoring data and comparing such data to previous data to track potential settlement. All data
collected by the licensee for these purposes shall be included in an annual report to be submitted
to the Executive Secretary, pursuant to License Condition 12.2. The SOP shall also:
A. Require that settlement monitors (e.g., settlement stands) be promptly installed
following placement of temporary cover over placed tailings;
B. Require installation of one or more representative settlement monitoring stand(s) above
each ISL source disposal area that has been closed to further disposal pursuant to
License Condition 10.5.A. There shall be at least one settlement monitoring stand for
each ISL source disposal area, estimated to be about 22,500 square feet. Installation of
said settlement monitoring stand and initial elevation survey shall be completed by the
licensee within 30 calendar days of completion of each ISL source disposal area. For
ISL source disposal areas or trenches completed before April 1,2010 the licensee shall
install the required settlement stand(s) and complete the initial elevation survey prior to
June 1,2010;
C. Indicate that the licensee will utilize settlement monitoring devices and methods that are
resistant to shifting in their positions as a result of such forces as frost heave, erosion,
burrowing animals, or other environmental factors;
D. Include provisions to prevent man-caused damage to settlement monitoring devices,
including, but not limited to vehicle and constmction traffic damage. Such measures
will include: 1) all equipment, procedures, and provisions needed to protect said
settlement monitoring devices, 2) schedules for rapid verbal and written reporting of any
such damage, and 3) corrective actions taken or to be taken by the licensee to replace
and/or repair said devices;
E. Indicate that settlement monitors will be:
(1) Initially surveyed by a Utah Licensed Professional Land Surveyor within, 30
calendar days of installation;
(2) Surveyed monthly; and
DRC-05
Page 18 of 21
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT1900479
Amendment #5
(3) Surveyed annually by a Utah Licensed Land Surveyor. Review of the data and
an analysis shall be performed and certified by a Utah Licensed Professional
Engineer and submitted annually as part of the ATER required by License
Condition 12.2;
F. Include procedures requiring that such settlement monitors be placed, surveyed,
mapped, and maintained; that corrective action and maintenance activities be performed
to maintain existing monitoring devices in a reliable, good working condition, as
needed; that the addition, surveying and mapping of new settlement monitoring devices
installed be documented; and that records be made of observations of site conditions as
they relate to the conditions at and in the vicinity of the installed monitoring devices;
G. Provide quantitative performance criteria and describe how such criteria will be used to
evaluate vertical movement;
H. Indicate that any settlement monitoring device that is irreparably damaged as a result of
environmental stresses or through man-caused contact, including but not limited to cell
constmction or other operational equipment, shall be promptly replaced with an
identical or equivalent monitoring device; and provisions provided to guide the
interpretation of data from both the former and the replacement device;
I. Indicate that where survey evidence suggests that significant apparent movement in a
settlement monitor has occurred, in excess of the approved performance criteria, that the
departure(s) will be investigated and explained, and errors corrected and resolved in a
timely manner, subject to Executive Secretary approval;
J. Indicate that photographs shall be taken of the monitoring areas at least annually to
document site and device conditions. Additionally, the SOP shall indicate that
photographs shall be taken following any instances of unusually severe weather or
incidents involving equipment if they result in physical damage or disturbance to any
settlement monitoring device, or significant changes to the ground surface areas adjacent
to or surrounding a settlement or displacement monitoring device;
K. Include a list of records that will be prepared for documenting settlement data for each
settlement monitoring device and related site observations and activities; and
L. Indicate that results and records of settlement monitoring shall be submitted annually as
part of the ATER required by License Condition 12.2.
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 4]
DRC-05
Page 19 of 21
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION GONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT1900479
Amendment #5
11.8 Movement (Displacement) Monitoring Standard Operating Procedure - the licensee shall submit
for Executive Secretary approval a written Movement Monitoring Standard Operating
Procedure (SOP) on or before December 1,2010. The proposed SOP shall describe methods for
monitoring potential vertical and horizontal movements in the constmcted dike portions of the
tailings management cells, and for recording and documenting displacement monitoring data
and comparing such data to previous data to track potential movement (displacement). All data
collected by the licensee for these purposes shall be included in an annual report to be submitted
to the Executive Secretary, pursuant to License Condition 12.2. The SOP shall also:
A. Require that movement monuments be promptly installed following completion of
constmction of cell dikes;
B. Indicate that the licensee will utilize movement monuments and monitoring methods
that are resistant to shifting in their positions as a result of such forces as frost heave,
erosion, burrowing animals, or other environmental factors;
C. Include an obligation for the licensee to prevent man-caused damage to movement
monuments, including, but not limited to vehicle and constmction traffic damage. Such
measures will include: 1) all equipment, procedures, provisions need to protect said
settlement monitoring devices, 2) schedules for rapid verbal and written reporting of any
such damage, and 3) corrective actions taken or to be taken by the licensee to replace
and/or repair said devices;
D. Indicate that movement monuments will be:
(1) Initially surveyed by a Utah Licensed Land Surveyor within 3 0 calendar days of
installation;
(2) Surveyed semi-annually for the first three years following installation by a Utah
Licensed Land Surveyor.
(3) Surveyed annually after the first three years by a Utah Licensed Land Surveyor
(4) Subj ected to accelerated monitoring conducted under certain circumstances, at a
frequency and in a manner approved by the Executive Secretary; and
(5) Reviewed annually by a Utah Licensed Professional Engineer, who shall
perform and certify an analysis of all survey data. This analysis shall be
submitted pursuant to License Condition 12.2;
E. Include procedures requiring that such movement monuments be placed, surveyed,
mapped, and maintained; that corrective action and maintenance activities be performed
to maintain existing movement monuments in a reliable, good working condition, as
needed; that the addition, surveying and mapping of new movement monuments
DRC-05
Page 20 of 21
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT1900479
Amendment #5
installed be documented; and that records be made of observations of site conditions as
they relate to the conditions at and in the vicinity of the installed monuments;
F. Provide quantitative performance criteria and describe how such criteria will be used to
evaluate movements (displacements);
G. Indicate that any movement monument that is irreparably damaged as a result of
environmental stresses or through man-caused contact, including but not limited to cell
constmction or other operational equipment, shall be promptly replaced with an
identical or equivalent movement monument; and provisions provided to guide the
interpretation of data from both the former and the replacement device;
H. Include a list of records that will be prepared for documenting movement (displacement)
data for each movement monument and related site observations and activities; and
I. Indicate that results and records of movements (displacements) shall be submitted
annually as part of the ATER required by License Condition 12.2.
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 4]
SECTION 12: REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
12.1 .The licensee shall submit a detailed decommissioning plan to the Executive Secretary at least
twelve (12) months prior to planned final shutdovm of mill operations that includes a detailed
Quality Assurance Plan. The plan will be in accordance with NRC Regulatory Guide 4.15,
"Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs" and NUREG-1575, "Mulfi-Agency
Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM)" or equivalent most current
guidance.
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 1][Applicable UDRC Amendment: 2]
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 5 Renewal]
12.2 Annual Technical Evaluation Report (ATER) - the licensee shall submit an ATER for
Executive Secretary approval no later than November 15, of each year, to coincide with the
annual freeboard calculation date of November l^^ of each year when using the new
Freeboard Calculation Method, as described in the letter from David A. Rupp of the Utah
Division of Radiation Control to Mr. David C. Frydenlund of Denison Mines (USA) Corp,
dated April 29, 2010. Each ATER shall incorporate all documents and attachments,
including applicable updates to previously submitted documents with attachments that
support information presented in the ATER, including, but not limited to maps, drawings,
tables, and figures. The licensee shall include, as part of the ATER, results of tailings cell
temporary cover settlement and dike displacement monitoring activities. The content ofthe
tailings cell temporary cover settlement and displacement monitoring program related
DRC-05
Page 21 of21
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT1900479
Amendment #5
information shall include those records required under the Settlement Monitoring and
Movement Monitoring SOPs (License Conditions 11.7 and 11.8), as approved by the
Executive Secretary.
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 4] [Applicable UDRC Amendment: 5 Renewal]
12.3 The licensee shall conduct an annual survey once every two years of land use (private
residences, grazing areas, private and public potable water and agricultural wells, non-
residential stmctures and uses and assess population growth or industry growth) in the area
within five kilometers radius of the White Mesa Uranium Mill facility property boundaries
and submit a report of this survey to the Executive Secretary. The report shall be submitted
on or before June 30 on even numbered years. This report shall indicate any differences in
land use from that described in the last report including the following: 1) providing
references and/or a description of methods utilized to obtain information included in the
report; 2) listing all water wells, owners, approved use, and contact information within the
specified search radius; and 3) including information on an updated land use map to be
included with the report.
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 5 Renewal]
UTAH RADIATION CONTROL BOARD
Rusty Lundberg, Executive Secretary Date
Safety Evaluation Report
For
The Denison Mines
White Mesa Mill
2007 License Renewal Application
October, 2011
Utah Division of Radiation Control
195 North 1950 West
SaltLakeCity.UT 84114-4850
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Application: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
Table of Contents
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 4
INTRODUCTION 5
1 PROPOSED ACTIVITIES 5
2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS .6
2.1 Geography and Demography 6
2.1.1 Geography .6
2.1.2 Demography 6
2.1.2.1 Land Use Survey.. 6
2.2 Meteorology 7
2.3 Hydrology ...7
2.3.1 Groundwater .7
2.3.2 Surface Water 7
2.4 Geology and Seismology 7
2.4.1 Geology 7
2.4.2 Seismology .8
3 MILL PROCESS AND EQUIPMENT 8
3.1 Mill Process ..8
3.2 Mill Equipment .....8
3.2.1 Conventional Ore Circuit 8
3.2.2 Vanadium Circuit 8
3.2.3 Altemate Feed Circuit 8
3.2.3.1 Altemate Feed Program 9
3.3 Instmmentation ...12
4 WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 12
4.1 Gaseous 12
4.2 Liquids and Solids 12
4.3 Contaminated Equipment 1343
4.4 ISL Byproduct Disposal (1 le(2) Material) .....13
5 OPERATIONS 14
5.1 Corporate Organization and Administrative Procedures 14
5.2 Qualifications 14
5.2.1 Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) 14
5.2.1.1 Radiation Safety Staff 14
5.3 Training 15
5.3.1 Radiation Safety Training Program 15
5.3.1.1 Re spiratory Protection Training 16
5.4 Security 16
5.4.1 Security Program 16
5.5 Radiation S afety 16
5.5.1 ALARA Program 17
5.5.2 Radiation Protecfion Manual 18
5.5.2.1 Radiation Monitoring-Personnel 18
5.5.2.2 Radiation Monitoring-Area .....19
5.5.2.3 Equipment/Cal ibration 21
Page 2 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Application: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
5.5.2.4 Exposure Calculations and Record Maintenance 21
5.5.2.5 Radiation Work Permits 21
5.5.2.6 Release Surveys 21
5.5.3 Respiratory Protection Program 24
5.5.4 Surety 25
5.5.5 Reclamation Plan ........27
5.6 Environmental Protection 30
5.6.1 Environmental Protection Program 30
5.6.1.1 Semi-Annual Effluent Monitoring 31^
5.6.1.2 Chloroform Investigation 32^
5.6.1.3 Nitrate Investigafion ..3234
5.6.1.4 Groundwater Quality Discharge Permit 33^
5.6.1.5 Ground Water Remediation 33^
5.6.1.6 Changes to Cell 1, 2, and 3 Leak Detection Requirements 343^
6 ACCIDENTS 3m
6.1 Emergency Response Plan 37^
6.2 Transportation Accidents Plan 3736
7 QUALITY ASSURANCE 37^
8 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 38^
ATTACHMENT 1 39^
ATTACHMENT 2 4343
References 4746
Page 3 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Application: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ALARA As Low As Reasonably Achievable
BAT Best Available Technology
CaF2 Calcium Fluoride
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
cm centimeter
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
DRC Utah Division of Radiation Control
DUSA Denison Mines (USA) Corporafion
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act
ICTM Inflltration and Contamination Transportation Modeling
GWQDP Groundwater Quality Discharge Permit
KF Potassium Fluoride
km kilometers
KOH Potassium Hydroxide
LDS Leak Detection System
Licensee Denison Mines (USA) Corp^oration
LRA License Renewal Application
MDA Minimum Detectable Activity
Mill the White Mesa Mill in Blanding, Utah
millirem one thousandth of one Roentgen Equivalent Man
NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
OSL Optically Stimulated Luminescence
pCi picocurie; 10"'^ curie
rem Roentgen Equivalent Man
RML Radioactive Materials License
RPP Respiratory Protection Program
RSO Radiation Safety Officer
RST Radiation Safety Technician
RWP Radiation Work Permit
SER Safety Evaluation Report
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
SPCC Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures
s second
TDS total dissolved solids
TEDE Total Effective Dose Equivalent
UAC Utah Administrative Code
UF4 Uranium Tetrafluoride
U3O8 Uranium Oxide
yd yard
5h:lv flve horizontal units (5h) to one vertical unit (lv); represents slope
or steepness
Page 4 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Application: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this Safety Evaluation Report (SER) is to identify and summarize the
information the Utah Division of Radiation Control (DRC) evaluated in its review of
Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (the Licensee) White Mesa Mill's Febmary 2007 License
Renewal Application (LRA) and the grounds upon which the DRC staff concluded
whether regulatory requirements are satisfied. The Radiation Control Act, Utah Code
Title 19 Chapter 3, provides the Department of Environmental Quality's Radiation
Control Board the authority to make mles to protect the public and environment from
significant sources of radiation. The DRC is the agency in administering these mles and
regulates activities in the State of Utah that involve radioactive materials, some types of
radioactive waste, and radiation. Pursuant to regulation implementation, the DRC has
issued a Radioactive Material License (RML) to the Licensee to possess and manage
radioactive materials and 1 le.(2) wastes. In order to assist the DRC in ensuring that all
applicable regulatory requirements are currently being satisfied and will continue to be
satisfied, the DRC statutes require the Licensee to have their RML routinely reviewed
and renewed.
As part of their responsibility, the DRC enforces requirements defined by the State of
Utah mles. The specific rule that deals with uranium mills is contained in the Utah
Administrative Code (UAC), Section R313-24, "Uranium Mills and Source Material Mill
Tailings Disposal Facility Requirements." Section R313-24 references other mles that are
contained in the UAC including: Sections R313-12 "General Provisions", R313-15,
"Standards for Protection Against Radiation", R313-18 "Notices, Instmctions and
Reports to Workers by Licensees or Registrants - Inspections", R313-19 "Requirements
of General Applicability to Licensing of Radioactive Material", R313-21 "General
Licenses", R313-22, "Specific Licenses" and R313-70 "Payments, Categories and Types
of Fees." Federal regulations and NRC Regulatory Guides are also applicable via
reference in UAC R313-24, in License Conditions contained in the Licensee's RML and
in the License Renewal Application.
Since the license renewal process was commenced back in 2007, several unrelated
licensing actions have been requested and granted. These include:
• The Tailing Cell 4A approval letter authorizing operation of the disposal cell was
issued September 17, 2008; and
• The Tailing Cell 4B License Amendment was completed on June 17, 2010.
Additional information on these Amendments/Permit Modifications can be found in the
Statement of Basis for each approval, dated October 24, 2007 and April 6, 2010,
respectively.
1 PROPOSED ACTIVITIES
Section 5 of the DRC Form (DRC-01 09/06) for the License Renewal Application asks
the applicant to identify the radioactive material to be possessed and Section 6 asks the
purpose for which licensed material will be used. In Volume 1, Section 2 of the
Page 5 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Application: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
Licensee's 2007 Renewal Application, the Licensee outlined the proposed acfivities as
follows: "Denison proposes to continue to operate the Mill, producing a calendar year
limit of4,380 tons UjOg. " The Licensee continued in Section 2.1 "Feedfor the Mill will
be provided through: 1) mining operations of Denison and its affiliates, and 2) other
uranium/vanadium mining operations; and 3) alternate feed materials. " The Licensee
also stated that Mill tailings will be deposited in existing authorized tailing cells with the
possibility of additional cells being constmcted and liquid waste is retained in lined cells.
The DRC also noted that the Licensee included a brief description of the Mill and a map
showing its location, the corporate entities involved, the maximum design throughput of
the Mill, U3O8 content of the ore to be processed, concentrate yield, milling process, and
tailings management. The DRC concluded that the Licensee provided all necessary
information in Volume 1 through Volume 4 in their License Renewal Application in
accordance with the requirements of Sections 5 and 6 of the License Renewal
Application.
2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Volume 1 of the Licensee's 2007 Renewal Application referenced the Envirormiental
Report, which was located in Volume 4 for all Site Characteristics information. Each
section is discussed below.
2,1 Geography and Demography
In Section 3.9 Volume 4 of the 2007 License Renewal Application, the Licensee
documented the Mill's Geography and Demography. These are discussed below.
2.1.1 Geography
The Environmental Report describes the Geography for the region around the Mill. This
description includes maps showing the location of the site with respect to State, county,
and local nearby inhabited areas and showing the Mill, mill perimeter, tailings location,
exclusion area boundary, company property, abutting and adjacent properties, nearby
water bodies, and inhabited areas. The DRC has determined that all relevant information
has been provided, as required by UAC R313-24-4 which references 10CFR40, Appendix
A, Criterion 4.
2.1.2 Demography
The Environmental Report describes the demography including the socioeconomic
profile for the region around the Mill. Information was obtained from the U.S. Census
Bureau using the 2000 Census, which provided information for population centers within
50 miles of the Mill. The DRC determined all relevant information has been provided, as
required by UAC R313-24-4 which references 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 4.
2.1.2.1 Land Use Survey
A Land Use Survey Report requirement was added to the RML in a new License
Condition 12.3. The purpose of the report is to document the changes to land use
surrounding the Mill property. This information can be used to help the Mill maintain
Page 6 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Applicafion: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
compliance with UAC R313-24-4. This report will also identify any potential routes of
exposure of contaminates and dose to the general public. The report is required to be
submitted every other year on or before June 30^^. The Licensee is required to conduct
the land use survey on even numbered years. The radius surrounding the Mill's property
boundary for this report has been set at 5 km.
2.2 Meteorology
The Environmental Report describes the Climate and Meteorology around the region and
near the Mill. The Licensee also provided more detailed information in the 2004-2006
Meteorological Reports. These two sources of information included: (1) diurnal and
monthly averages and extremes of temperature and humidity, (2) monthly wind
characteristics including speeds and direction, annual joint frequency of wind speed, and
direction by stability category, (3) data on precipitation, and (4) frequency of occurrence
and effects of storms. The DRC has determined that all relevant information has been
provided, as required by UAC R313-24-4 which references 10CFR40, Appendix A,
Criterion 4.
2.3 Hydrology
In Section 3.7 Volume 4 of the 2007 License Renewal Application, the Licensee
documented the hydrology of the Mill site and surrounding area. This issue is discussed
below.
2.3.1 Groundwater
The hydrogeology and groundwater for the region and near the Mill is discussed in the
Environmental Report. The report discusses the different water bearing zones with both
the main aquifer and the perched hydrogeologic zones for the immediate Mill vicinity.
Groundwater monitoring, issues and contaminate investigations are discussed in Section
5.6 of this document.
2.3.2 Surface Water
As indicated in the Environmental Report, there is no perennial surface water at the Mill
site. There are two surface water sources at the Mill site, which are the Mill's wildlife
ponds and the seeps and springs surrounding the facility. The seeps and springs are
monitored annually in accordance of the Mill's GWQDP. Surface water monitoring is
discussed in Section 5.6.1.1 of this document.
2.4 Geology and Seismology
In Section 3.4 Volume 4 of the 2007 License Renewal Application, the Licensee
documented the Mill's Geology and Seismology. These are discussed below.
2.4.1 Geology
The Environmental Report discusses the regional and local geology. This included a
brief description of the geologic features of the region, a stratigraphic section, a geologic
map, and a description of the local soils. The DRC determined all relevant information
Page 7 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Application: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
has been provided, as required by UAC R313-24-4 which references 10CFR40, Appendix
A, Criterion 4.
2.4.2 Seismology
The Environmental Report discusses the seismology of the area using the regions
historical record. The DRC determined all relevant information has been provided, as
required by UAC R313-24-4, which references 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 4.
3 MILL PROCESS AND EQUIPMENT
Section 9 ofthe License Renewal Application Form asks the applicant to identify the
facilities and equipment to be used. The DRC used Draft NRC Regulatory Guide 3.5
Section 3.0 as a guide to evaluate the requirements in Section 9 of the License Renewal
Application Form. Section 4.0 Volume One of the 2007 License Renewal Application
documents the Mill's process and equipment. The different circuits are discussed below.
3.1 l^ill Process
The Licensee provides in Section 4.1.1 of Volume One of the 2007 License Renewal, a
Mill Process Summary. This included a description of feed rates, the different ore
process stages, a flow chart diagram, and a general Mill layout. The DRC evaluated the
description of the Mill's processes and confirmed that it meets all applicable
requirements.
3.2 Mill Equipment
3.2.1 Conventional Ore Circuit
In Section 4.1.2 through 4.1.9 of Volume One of the 2007 License Renewal Application,
the Licensee provided a detailed description of each stage in processing uranium ore.
The DRC evaluated the description of the Mill's conventional ore circuit and confirmed
that it meets all requirements for Section 9 of the License Renewal Application Form.
3.2.2 Vanadium Circuit
In Section 4.1.10 through 4.1.12 of Volume One ofthe 2007 License Renewal
Application, the Licensee provided a detailed description of each stage in recovering
vanadium. The DRC evaluated the description of the Mill's Vanadium Recovery circuit
and confirmed that it meets all requirements for Section 9 of the License Renewal
Application Form.
3.2.3 Alternate Feed Circuit
During the time in which the License Renewal Application was under review, the
Licensee added a new Altemate Feed Circuit to the Mill. In the Second Round of Health
Physics Interrogatories the DRC requested additional information of the Altemate Feed
Circuit.
The Licensee responded to the Second Round of Health Physics Interrogatories wdth
additional information on the new Altemate Feed Circuit which included a schematic and
Page 8 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Application: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
the following explanation for the new circuit: "Historically the Mill has processed
alternate feed materials utilizing existing Mill equipment and facilities. However:
In most cases the portions of the existing Mill circuit usedfor alternate feed processing
could not simultaneously be used for conventional ore processing thereby resulting in
alternate feed processing displacing conventional ore processing; and cleaning up the
process circuits between different alternate feed processing runs and prior to subsequent
conventional ore processing runs can be costly and time-consuming.
In order to eliminate these two issues the Mill constructed a new alternate feed circuit
(the "Circuit") that can be run simultaneously and independently fr-om a number of the
conventional ore processing circuits. The solvent extraction, precipitation, drying and
packaging stages, however, will normally continue to be performed as needed by the use
of existing facilities."
After reviewing the additional information provided by the Licensee the DRC has
concluded that the Licensee has met all requirements for Section 9 of the License
Renewal Application form.
3.2.3.1 Alternate Feed Program
In Section 4.2 of Volume One of the 2007 License Renewal Application, the Licensee
provided a detailed description of the Mill's Altemate Feed Program. Altemate feed is
uranium-bearing material other than conventionally mined ore such as residues from
other processing facilities. Currently, the Mill's RML contains fourteen license
amendments which allow the Mill to process seventeen different altemate feeds.
During the review of the LRA, the DRC staff had concems about how the Licensee was
maintaining and tracking the altemate feed stock piles. Therefore, the DRC requested in
the first round of Health Physics Interrogatories additional information on inspection
procedure requirements of the altemate feed material that are stored in containers other
than dmms and altemate feed being stored on the Ore storage pad, and how the Licensee
keeps track of altemate feed from when the Mill takes acceptance ofthe material until
they process the material and the procedure used to determine how and when altemate
feed material is to be processed through the Mill.
The Licensee responded in their submittal dated Febmary 5, 2009, that all altemate feed
materials stored off the ore pad is subject to Mill procedure Containerized Alternate
Feedstock Material Storage Procedure, No. PBL-19 and they provided a copy of this
procedure in an attachment. All altemate feeds are required to be inspected as per that
procedure. The Licensee then added that all altemate feed material stored on the ore pad
are inspected by the White Mesa Mill Tailings Management System Discharge
Minimization Technology (DMT) Monitoring Plan and "any alternate feed material
stored in super sacks or otherwise, on the ore pad are subject to the controls and
inspections applicable to bulk materials stored on the ore pad. " The Licensee explained
that concems with altemate feed being exposed to the elements particularly wind
dispersement is addressed in the Mill's Tailings Dust Minimization and the White Mesa
Page 9 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Application: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
Mili Work Practice Standards for Control of Fugitive Dust-Ore Receipt and Front-End
Loader Operations as per an Approval Order from the State of Utah Air Quality
Division. Finally, Altemate feed procedures are developed on how each altemate feed
will be processed, but not when they will be processed. The Altemate feed will be
processed when it is determined there is enough material onsite to process.
In the second round of Health Physics Interrogatories, the DRC staff requested that the
Licensee be more specific on how Mill workers and the general public are protected from
unnecessary extemal and potential inhalation exposure from altemate Feed Stocks that
are allowed to be managed liked conventional ore on the ore pad. Additional radiation
safety information was also provided. The DRC also requested a list of altemate feed
material that Denison Mines no longer is accepting, include an updated list of approved
altemate feeds with their corresponding License Condition.
The Licensee responded in a submittal dated August 14, 2009, as follows: "Alternate
feed materials are managed at the Mill in such manner as to keep potential exposures to
the public and occupational exposures within the exposure levels for conventional ore
operations at the Mill. "
As part of the 2007 LRA, the Licensee performed a MILDOS AREA Modeling on
Arizona Strip ores which have an average grade of 0.64% U3OO8 and Colorado Plateau
ores with an average grade of 0.25% UjOOg. The Licensee also stated that; "77^^
foregoing analysis for conventional ores sets the environmental envelope for Mill
operations that can be performed without considering the need for further modeling.
Alternate feed materials are handled so as not to allow potential exposures to the public
to exceed the potential exposures from processing Arizona Strip ores at full capacity
without further modeling and if further modeling is required without exceeding the
applicable regulatory standards and ALARA goal specified in R313-15-101 R313-15-301
and 40 CFR 190. Similarly alternate feed materials are only handled in manner that
ensures that occupational exposures are kept within the Mill's ALARA goal of 1250
mrem per year. To date all alternate feed materials have fallen well within this envelope
and no feed-specific modeling has been required. "
The Licensee further states: "In order to meet these requirements the following practices
have been followed for alternate feed materials:
• High grade alternate feed materials typically with 1.0% UsOg or greater are
usually received at the Mill and stored in drums or other containers. This is the
way that CaF2, KOH, Rhone Poulenc, Cotter Concentrates and the Cameco KF,
Calcined, Regen and UF4 alternate feed materials have been received and stored
at the Mill;
• Alternate feed materials that are received in bulk and that have higher risk of
public or occupational exposure than Arizona Strip ores such as may result from
high radioactivity and/or fine dry particles relative to Arizona Strip ores have
been covered by less radioactive materials while stored on the Mill 's ore pad.
This is the way the Heritage alternate feed materials were handled on site; and
Page 10 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Application: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
• Alternate feed materials that are received in bulk and that have lower risk of
public or occupational exposure than Arizona Strip ores have been stored in bulk
on the site in the same manner as conventional ores. This is the way the Ashland
Ashland and Linde FUSRAP materials and the Cabot and FMRI materials have
been handled on site. "
The Licensee concluded, "Based on the foregoing practices Denison is satisfied that all
alternate feed materials are handled at the Mill in manner that ensures that exposures to
the public and occupational exposures are kept within the environmental assumptions for
the site and well within applicable regulatory standards and ALARA goals. "
In addition the Licensee provided information on the new Altemate Feed circuit that was
discussed above and provided a list of approved Altemate feeds that are no longer being
accepted. After reviewing the additional information provided by the Licensee, the DRC
concluded that the Licensee has met all applicable requirements.
Modification / Removal of Previous Alternate Feed Requirements
License Condition 10.1 - the Licensee is not allowed to bring a new altemate feed
material to the Mill until the Licensee has demonstrated the following.
1. Sufficient Disposal Capacity - that there is sufficient disposal capacity
currently available at the White Mesa facility such that the proposed altemate
feed material and any liquid by-products, will be permanently disposed in
tailings cells designed and constmcted to meet the Best Available Technology
requirements in Part I.D.5 (CeU 4A) and Part I.D.12 (CeH 4B) ofthe Mill's
GWQDP, and
2. Adequate Disposal Cell Operation - that the disposal of by-product material
rendered by recovery operations for the proposed altemate feed material will
not lead to or cause a violation of the disposal cell performance standards set
in Parts I.D.6 (Cell 4A) and I.D.13 (Cell 4B) ofthe Permit, including, but not
limited to maximum wastewater levels in the cells (or minimum freeboard
limits).
3. NRC Altemate Feed Policy - that the proposed feed material meets all the
criteria / requirements of the NRC altemate feed policy, found in NRC
Regulatory Issue Summary, RIS 2000-23, dated November 30, 2000. This
includes a 3-point test defined in Attachment 2 of the NRC document.
After receipt of Executive Secretary approval of the above demonstrations, and
opportunity for formal public comment, pursuant to UAC R313-17, and resolution ofall
comments received, the License may be amended to allow receipt and processing of a
specific source, or campaign, of altemate feed. As a result of this change, previous NRC
wording was simplified in existing License Conditions 10.14 thm 10.18.
Page 11 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Application: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
During the renewal process, DRC staff determined that there were 3 sources of altemate
feed material, approved by the NRC in the past that the Licensee would not receive in the
future. These included:
1. Cotter Concentrates (former License Condition 10.8),
2. Ashland 2 FUSRAP material (former License Condifion 10.10), and
3. Ashland 1 FUSRAP material (former License Condition 10.12).
As a result, these feed sources were removed from the license and receipt of this material
is no longer authorized.
3,3 Instrumentation
In Secfion 4.1.14 of Volume One of the 2007 License Renewal Application, the Licensee
provided a detailed description on instmmentation used at the Mill. The DRC evaluated
the description of the Mill's instmmentation and confirmed that it meets all requirements
for Section 9 of the License Renewal Application Form.
4 WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Section 11 of the License Renewal Application Form asks the applicant to identify how
the facility will conduct waste management activities. Section 5.0 Volume One ofthe
2007 License Renewal Application, the Licensee documented the Mill's Waste
Management systems. These systems are discussed below.
4.1 Gaseous
In Volume I, Section 5.1 Gaseous-Mill, the Licensee discusses all of the engineering
controls and administrative procedures that are in place for the emission sources at the
Mill. This included stack emissions and airbome dust and fume control for the Mill, the
stockpiles and the Mill's laboratory. The DRC determined all relevant information has
been provided.
4.2 Liquids and Solids
In Volume I, Section 5.2 Liquids and solids the Licensee states, "The design of the Mill is
such that any leaks or spills are collected and recycled to the appropriate part of the
process, thus eliminating any product loss, hazard to personnel, or contamination of the
surrounding area. " Additionally the Licensee stated, "Most process liquids are recycled
in the Mill; however, about one ton of liquid (water) for every one ton of tailings solids is
discharged to the impoundment area the water is required to transport the solid tailings.
In addition, the elimination of some process water in this manner avoids a buildup in
chemical ions that could affect the Milling process. " The Licensee has also developed a
Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan and Storm Water Best
Management Practice Plan. A procedure for cleaning up spills inside the Mill are-is
included in the Ore Receiving, Feed and Grind Manual (Appendix F of the 2007 RML
Renewal Application) and the Yellowcake Precipitation Manual (Appendix G of the 2007
RML Renewal Application)^, The DRC determined all relevant information has been
provided.
Page 12 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Applicafion: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
4.3 Contaminated Equipment
In Volume I, Section 5.2.3 Contaminated Equipment the Licensee states, "All equipment
contaminated by source material in the Mill process is buried in a designated zone per 10
CFR Part 40 within the tailings impoundments or, if released, is decontaminated for
unrestricted use as specified in NRC Guidelines for Decontamination of Facilities and
Equipment Prior to Release for Unrestricted Use or Termination of Licenses for
Byproduct, Source, or Special Nuclear Material, NRC, May, 1987. All solid
contaminated waste from Milling operations will be buried in the Mill's tailings retention
system. " The DRC has determined that both practices are acceptable methods of disposal
of contaminated equipment. Disposal of contaminated equipment is discussed further in
the Mill's Reclamation Plan and reviewed annually in the Mill's surety review. The DRC
determined all relevant information has been provided.
4.4 ISL Byproduct Disposal (11 e(2) Material)
License Condition 10.5 authorizes the disposal of byproduct material generated at
licensed in-situ leach (ISL) facilities. Up to 5,000 cubic yard of material from any one
source.
After reviewing the License Condition 10.5 and all of the applicable State of Utah
Statues, there appears to be no conflict. Under State Statute 59-24-102(7)(b) "byproduct
material" is defined as radioactive waste. In addition. Statute 59-24-102 (8)(b) defines a
uranium mill as a radioactive waste facility. License Condition 10.5 is for the disposal of
byproduct material at the White Mesa Uranium Mill. However, Statute 19-3-105(10)(a)
excludes all existing facilities prior to December 31, 2006 from govemor, legislative and
county approval. Paragraph (c) also excludes RML amendments and renewals from
govemor, legislative and county approval as long as the boundaries ofthe facility do not
change. Denison Mines is not changing their existing boundary (as defined in License
Condition 9.1 and 2007 RML renewal application) in the License Renewal or in the last
amendment; therefore, no govemor, legislative and county approval is required. It was
noticed during this review, that License Condition 9.1 description of the authorized
location is the White Mesa uranium milling facility. The legal description of the White
Mesa uranium facility was added to License Condition 9.1 during this license renewal
process.
Page 13 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Application: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
5 OPERATIONS
5.7 Corporate Organization and Administrative Procedures
In Section 6.1 of Volume One of the 2007 License Renewal Application, the Licensee
documented the Corporate Organization of the Mill and described the duties and
responsibilities of each level of management. The Licensee also provided an
organizational flow diagram to further clarify the line of authority. The DRC determined
all relevant information has been provided and is consistent with the current
organizational stmcture and UAC R313-24-4, which references 10CFR40.31(h), by using
Section 5.1 of draft NRC Regulatory Guide 3.5.
5,2 Qualifications
5.2.1 Radiation Safety Officer (RSO)
Section 7 of the License Renewal Application Form, asks the applicant to list the
Individual(s) responsible for Radiation Safety Program and their training and experience.
The Licensee provided the RSO's resume outlining his training and experience. In
addition the Licensee committed that the Mill's RSO will be qualified and receive
training as oufiined in NRC Regulatory Guide 8.31 as referenced by the Licensee in
Appendix I, ALARA Program, of the Febmary 2007 License Renewal Application.
During the review of the LRA the DRC staff voiced a concem about the number of
additional responsibilities that the Mill's RSO oversees^^ These responsibilities include
the Radiation Safety Department, the Environmental Department, and the Occupational
Safety Department. The Mills RSO also acts as the Mill's Fire Chief and the Response
Team Leader in case of a transportation accident. Therefore, the DRC requested in the
first round of Health Physics Interrogatories, the staff organizational charts and
information on staff training for the Mill's Radiation Safety Department, the
Environmental Department, and the Occupational Safety Department.
After reviewing the RSO's resume and the additional information provided by the
Licensee in their Febmary 5, 2009 submittal, the DRC staff was able to confirm that the
Licensee has complied with the guidance found in NRC Regulatory Guide 8.31 Section
2.4.1 to meet the required information requested in Section 7 of the License Renewal
Application Form.
5.2.1.1 Radiation Safety Staff
Section 7 of the License Renewal Application Form, asks the applicant to list the
Individual(s) responsible for Radiation Safety Program and their training and experience.
In the Licensee's Febmary 2007 License Renewal Application Volume 1 Section 6.1.1
Management: states that "the RSO may be assigned staff to maintain compliance with the
applicable regulations" and Radiation Safety Technicians (RST) shall receive training as
Page 14 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Application: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
outlined in NRC Regulatory Guide 8.31, as referenced by the Licensee in Appendix I,
ALARA Program.
After reviewing the training requirements for RSTs and the organizational chart for the
Radiation Safety Department provided by the Licensee in their Febmary 5, 2009
submittal, the DRC staff was able to confirm that the Licensee has complied with the
guidance found in NRC Regulatory Guide 8.31 Secfion 2.4.2 to meet the required
informafion requested in Section 7 of the License Renewal Application Form.
5,3 Training
Section 8 of the License Renewal Application Form asks the applicant to identify the
training of individuals working in or frequenfing the restricted area of the Mill.
5.3.1 Radiation Safety Training Program
The White Mesa Mill Radiation Safety Training Program states "The purpose of the
initial training is to instruct all Mill workers on the inherent risks of exposure to
radiation and the fundamentals ofprotection against exposure to uranium and its
daughters before beginning their jobs. " To accomplish this, the Licensee in Appendix I,
ALARA Program, of the Febmary 2007 License Renewal Application, references NRC
Regulatory Guide 8.31 Section 2.5 and that the Radiation Safety training will follow the
topics listed in six subsections.
During the review of the Mill's Radiation Safety Training Program the DRC staff had
concems if all ofthe topics outlined in NRC Regulatory Guide 8.31 were being covered;
therefore, in the first round of Health Physics Interrogatories these concems were raised.
The DRC staff also asked for a clarification on what a passing score is and what happens
when an employee does not pass the Mill's training programs. The Licensee revised and
reformatted their Radiafion Safety Training Program (dated May 15, 2009) and the DRC
staff reviewed the new revision, which included: descriptions of the training that will be
provided, a descripfion of who will be required to take radiation safety training, outlines
ofthe topics to be covered during radiation safety training, copies of handouts that will be
given to employees, example exams, a copy of NRC Regulatory Guide 8.13, and copies
of forms used to document the training that each employee has received.
In the second round of Interrogatories the DRC staff requested that all types of ionizing
radiation be discussed and a section on the three fixed nuclear gauges be included in the
Radiation Safety Training Program. The Licensee added language to the Mill's
Radiafion Safety Training Program in their response dated August 14, 2009 that covered
all forms of ionizing radiation and the three fixed nuclear gauges. After reviewing the
addifional changes to the revised Radiation Safety Training Program, DRC staff was able
to confirm that the Licensee has complied with all of the requirements in NRC
Regulatory Guide 8.31.
Page 15 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Application: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
5.3.1.1 Respiratory Protection Training
The Mill's Radiation Safety Training Program states "Thisprogram outlines the
radiation safety training (including respiratory protection training) that will be given to
all Mill workers, as well as to contractors and visitors at the Mill. " In Appendix I,
ALARA Program, Section 2.7.5 the Licensee commits that the Respiratory Protection
Program follows NRC Regulatory Guide 8.15. Section 5.2 of NRC Regulatory Guide
8.15 outlines the topics to be covered by the Respiratory Protection Training.
During the review of the Mill's Radiation Safety Training Program, the DRC staff had
concems if all of the topics outlined in NRC Regulatory Guide 8.15 for Respiratory
Protection Training were being covered. The DRC requested addhional information in
the first round of Health Physics Interrogatories. The Licensee revised, reformatted and
resubmitted their Radiation Safety Training Program (dated May 15, 2009) and included
an enhanced respiratory protection section, which included an outline of discussion topics
and a separate respiratory protection exam to test employee's knowledge of the Mill's
Respiratory Protection Program. After reviewing the additional changes to the revised
Radiation Safety Training Program section on Respiratory Protection, DRC staff
confirmed that the Licensee has complied with the requirements in NRC Regulatory
Guide 8.15.
5.4 Security
5.4.1 Security Program
In Secfion 6.3.4 and Appendix K of the 2007 License Renewal Applicafion, the Licensee
documents the security procedures and program implemented at the Mill. This includes a
description ofthe areas fenced and posted and visitor and contractor requirements. The
DRC evaluated the Mill's Security Program and confirm that it meets the requirements in
UAC R313-24-4, which references 10CFR40.31(h), by using Section 5.4 of draft NRC
Regulatory Guide 3.5.
5.5 Radiation Safety
The state requirements for Radiafion Protection Programs are found in UAC R313-15-
101, which is included below:
UAC R313 -15-101. Radiation Protecfion Programs.
(1) Each licensee or registrant shall develop, document, and implement a radiation
protection program sufficient to ensure compliance with the provisions of Rule R313-15.
See Section R313-15-1102 for recordkeeping requirements relating to these programs.
(2) The Licensee or registrant shall use, to the extent practical, procedures and
engineering controls based upon sound radiation protection principles to achieve
occupational doses and doses to members of the public that are as low as is reasonably
achievable (ALARA).
Page 16 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Applicafion: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
(3) The Licensee or registrant shall, at intervals not to exceed 12 months, review the
radiation protection program content and implementation.
(4) To implement the ALARA requirements of Subsection R313-15-101(2), and
notwithstanding the requirements in Section R313-15-301, a constraint on air emissions
of radioacfive material to the environment, excluding radon-222 and its decay products,
shall be established by licensees or registrants such that the individual member of the
public likely to receive the highest dose will not be expected to receive a total effective
dose equivalent in excess of 0.1 mSv (0.01 rem) per year from these emissions. If a
licensee or registrant subject to this requirement exceeds this dose constraint, the
Licensee or registrant shall report the exceedance as provided in Section R313-15-1203
and promptly take appropriate corrective action to ensure against recurrence.
Section 10 of the License Renewal Application Form asks the applicant to explain the
radiation safety program of the Mill. To comply with this requirement the Licensee has
established the following Mill programs discussed below:
5.5.1 ALARA Program
The Licensee states in their ALARA Program in the section titled Management
Commitment "Denison Mines (USA) Corp. ("Denison") is committed to maintaining
occupational exposures of personnel, contractors and visitors and effluent releases at the
White Mesa Mill (the "Mill") as low as reasonably achievable ("ALARA "). " The
Licensee continues "This ALARA program is to be achieved through systematic worker
monitoring and an on-going review process between the radiation protection staff and
plant operation management with secondary audits performed by corporate
environmental and health and safety personnel. " This program outlines for the ALARA
auditor the commitments that the Licensee has established to maintain the Mill's ALARA
goals.
During the review of the ALARA Program, DRC staff became concemed with the
designated eating areas within the restricted area of the Mill. During the first round of
Health Physics Interrogatories, the DRC requested justification of having designated
eating areas and the number of eating areas within the restricted area and an explanation
ofthe process and criteria used by the RSO in determining appropriate eating areas
within the restricted area and how is the criteria maintained. The Licensee responded in
their submittal dated February 5, 2009 that they follow the guidelines in NRC regulatory
Guide 8.30 Section 2.5 and that the number of designated eating areas within the Mill's
restricted area is kept to a minimum.
In the second round of Health Physics Interrogatories the DRC staff requested the
Licensee be more specific and define what controls each Designated Eating Area must
have (i.e. frisking requirements, wash facilities. Entry Procedures, etc.) to be a suitable
Designated Eating Areas. The Licensee's response dated August 14, 2009 adds the
following language to the ALARA Program:
Page 17 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Application: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
"The ALARA Program now spells out in more detail the criteria that must be applied by
the Mill RSO in designating an eating area. Specifically each designated eating area
must now meet all of the following criteria:
• located in an area where work with uranium is not performed and there is little
likelihood ofcontamination;
• wash facilities are located close by to allow workers to wash their hands etc prior
to entering the designated eating area;
• scanning machines are placed at each entry into the designated eating area; and
• each worker entering designated eating area must perform and record personal
alpha scan in the same manner as ifthe worker were leaving the Mill's restricted
area and must be free of contamination prior to entering the designated eating
area."
The Licensee also reduced the number of designated eating areas in the Mill's restricted
area to two, the existing Lunch Room/Training Room and the area above the Warehouse
offices. After reviewing the changes to the revised ALARA Program Section 2.2.2 on
Policy for eating in the Restricted Area, DRC staff was able to confirm that the Licensee
has complied with all of the requirements in NRC Regulatory Guide 8.30 Section 2.5.
5.5.2 Radiation Protection Manual
The Licensee describes their Radiation Protection Program as "The program consists of
management controls, administrative procedures and monitoring programs.
Management controls and administrative procedures are designed to ensure the existence
of and adherence to a Mill program that is functional in achieving corporate and
regulatory agency compliance. The monitoring programs consist of personnel exposure
documentation, Mill effluent identification and control, process system operation
documentation, off-site environment exposure documentation, and quality control
procedures, both analytical and managerial. "
There are six sections to the Mill's Radiation Protection Program. Each section is
discussed below.
5.5.2.1 Radiation Monitoring-Personnel
Section 1.0 of Appendix E of the 2007 License Renewal Application contains the
procedures for personnel monitoring which include procedures for airbome particulates,
alpha surveys, beta/gamma surveys and urinalysis surveys. The airbome particulate
section is further divided into personnel breathing zone samplers and ambient air high
volume samplers.
During the review, the DRC noticed in Subsection 1.3.1 that it stated an OSL badge may
be wom on the torso of the body or on the exterior of the hard hat. UAC R313-15-503(1)
states: "Location of Individual Monitoring Devices: An individual monitoring device
used for monitoring the dose to the whole body shall be worn at the unshielded location
ofthe whole body likely to receive the highest exposure. When a protective apron is
worn, the location ofthe individual monitoring device is typically at the neck (collar). "
Page 18 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Application: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
In the first round of Health Physics Interrogatories, the DRC requested additional
information on OSL badges being wom on hard hats, new employees not being assigned
OSL badge at the beginning of employment, and the Breathing Zone Sampling sheet.
In the Licensee response to the first round of Health Physics Interrogatories, the Licensee
explained that the practice for wearing OSL badges on the hard hat was changed and the
change was implemented on September 12, 2007 and those changes were not in affect
when the license renewal application was submitted. The Licensee then continued that
the necessary change would be made to the Radiation Protection Manual and the Training
Manual. The Licensee also committed to having OSL badges available to new employees
when they start and add further explanation to the Breathing Zone Sampling sheet.
After reviewing the added subsection to Section 3 of the Radiation Protection Manual the
DRC staff was able to confirm that the Licensee has complied with all applicable
requirements.
5.5.2.2 Radiation Monitoring-Area
Section 2.0 of Appendix E ofthe 2007 License Renewal Application contains procedures
on High Volume Airbome Area Air Sampling, Radon, Alpha Area Surveys, Beta/Gamma
Area Surveys, Extemal Gamma Surveys, Equipment Release Surveys, and Product
Release Surveys.
During the review, the DRC noticed in this section of the Radiation Protection Manual
that the description of surveying product drums to be released from the restricted area
was detailed and the description of surveying equipment to be released from the restricted
area was very limited. The DRC also noticed that the techniques described in the product
drum survey procedures were different then what is described in DOT Regulation 49
CFR 173.443(a). In the first round of Health Physics Interrogatories, the DRC requested
additional information on release surveys for product dmms and equipment. Specifically,
the DRC requested an explanation why the Mill did not use survey techniques that were
described in 49 CFR 173.443(a) and a description on how these release surveys were
documented.
In the Licensee's response to the first round of Health Physics Interrogatories, the
information on survey techniques and documentation was addressed. In response to the
DRC inquiry of 49 CFR 173.443(a), the Licensee quoted 49 CFR 173.443(b) which states
other survey techniques may be used if they are of equal or greater efficiency.
After reviewing the Licensee's response to the first round of Health Physics
Interrogatories, the DRC requested additional information. In the second round of Health
Physics Interrogatories the DRC asked the Licensee to "Provide a procedure that
instructs radiation safety technicians on how to perform and document radiological
surveys for releasing equipment from the Mill's restricted area. " In addition, to verify
that release surveys meet the requirements to 49 CFR 173.443(b), the DRC asked the
Licensee to "Provide efficiency calculations to determine the efficiency ofthis method.
Include the survey procedure used, the efficiency of the meters and probes used in
Page 19 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Application: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
relation to U-238. Show that the meters and probes that are/will be used has the
appropriate sensitivity to provide a small enough reading to measure the required
release limits."
In the Licensee's response to the second round of Health Physics Interrogatories dated
August 14, 2009 it states "Denison will add new Section 6.0 to the Mill's Radiation
Protection Manual which will provide details on the actual survey procedures." (Section
6.0 is discussed in further detail in Section 5.5.2.3 of this report.) Also in the August 14,
2009 submittal the Licensee provided additional survey information and MDA
calculations to show that their survey techniques met the requirements of 49 CFR
173.443(b) of equal or greater efficiency as compared to the survey requirements in 49
CFR 173.443(a). When reviewing the MDA calculafions, the DRC requested additional
information via email of copies of the survey meters used calibration sheets. The DRC
also contacted the manufacture of the meters that the Licensee uses for more information
on the efficiency of the meters for U-238. Using the information from the manufacturer
ofthe meters and probes used at the Mill, the DRC calculated the MDA for Alpha
radiation and found that some of the meters and probes used at the Mill were not sensitive
enough for Alpha radiation to meet regulatory requirements.
Based off of the information provided in the calibration sheets and the information
received from the survey meters manufacturer, the DRC requested that the Licensee "Re-
evaluate the efficiency for the Ludlum Model-3 survey meters with the 44-9 GM pancake
probe using U-238 " in the third round of Interrogatories. The survey meters used by the
Licensee were calibrated with a high energy Beta radiation source (Cs-137) and not an
Alpha radiation source (U-238 or similar). The numbers used in the MDA calculations
that the Licensee provided were not be representative to the Mill's radiological
conditions.
In the Licensee response, dated March 3, 2010, they agreed with the MDA that the DRC
calculated for combined alpha and beta for the Ludlum Model-3 survey meter with a 44-9
GM pancake probe is 2,906 dpm/lOOcm^. However, tThe licensee argued that "the meter
and probe are used to measure contamination on an ore truck or other equipment, it is
reading both alpha and beta " and "the combined alpha and beta reading of less than
2,906 dpm/100 cm^ would be indicated as a non-detect. " The licensee continued "a total
count reading of non-detect (<2,2W906 dpm/lOOcm^) would mean that, for ore trucks,
the total alpha contamination would be less than about 1,500 dpm/lOOcm^. This is
sisnificantlv less than the DOT standard for restricted release of2.200 dpm/100 err?. "
This argument is incorroctnot acceptable because the Licensee is comparing a combined
Alpha/Beta reading to a the-2.200 dpm/100 cm^ limit for Alpha, which is not a combined
limit for Alpha and Beta contaminationi_-fi«d-tThe licensee needs to show compliance for
both separately.
However, the Licensee made the following commitment in their response dated March 3,
2010 "Denison will use alpha detectors with the same or equal efficiency as the alpha
detectors currently being used at the Mill for surveying equipment for unrestricted
release at the site, such as the Ludlum Model 177 counter and 43-5 alpha detector, for
Page 20 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Application: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
measuring potential alpha contamination on tucks and other vehicles and equipment. "
The DRC reviewed the additional information and commitments in the Licensee's
response to third round of Health Physics interrogatories. Based off the additional
information and the descriptions of all types of radiological surveys, locations of surveys
and the frequency that surveys performed at the Mill in the original 2007 license renewal
application submittal the DRC was able to confirm that the Licensee has complied with
the.requirements in UAC R313-15-501(l)&(2).
5.5.2.3 Equipment/Calibration
In Section 3.0 of Appendix E of the 2007 License Renewal Application, the Licensee
describes the calibration procedure and function tests for the radiation survey equipment
and the calibration procedures for the air monitoring equipment.
In the first round of Health Physics Interrogatories the DRC requested that the SOP for
using the DRY CAL or equivalent for calibrating air sampling equipment based during
on inspections of the Mill the DRC inspectors observed a different method for calibrating
air samplers than what was described in the renewal application.
In the Licensee response to the first round of Health Physics Interrogatories, the Licensee
added Subsection 3.2.3 "Electronic Calibration Method" for air sample pumps. After
reviewing the added subsection to Section 3 of the Radiation Protection Manual and the
previous submitted material in the 2007 license renewal application, the DRC staff was
able to confirm that the Licensee has complied with all requirements in UAC R313-15-
501(2).
5.5.2.4 Exposure Calculations and Record Maintenance
In Section 4.0 of Appendix E of the 2007 License Renewal Application, the Licensee
documented how the Derived Air Concentration (DAC) is calculated for conventional
ores, altemate feed and tailings. The licensee also documented how dose was calculated
for each employee and what records were kept and maintained. The DRC evaluated the
exposure calculations and records maintenance and confirmed that it meets all
requirements in UAC R313-24-4 which references 10CFR40.61.
5.5.2.5 Radiation Work Permits
In Section 5.0 of Appendix E of the 2007 License Renewal Application, the Licensee
documented the RWP procedures and program implemented at the Mill. This included a
description of when a RWP is required, what information is required on each RWP, and
how a RWP is obtained. The DRC evaluated the description of the Mill's RWP process
and confirmed that it meets all requirements as outline in NRC Regulatory Guide 8.31
Section 2.2.
5.5.2.6 Release Surveys
During the review of the 2007 License Renewal Application, the DRC noticed the
description of surveying product dmms to be released from the restricted area was
detailed in Appendix B and Appendix E, Secfion 2.7. The DRC also noticed that the
Page 21 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Application: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
description of releasing ore tmcks, intermodal containers, and equipment from the
restricted area was very limited. The DRC also noticed that the techniques described in
the product dmm survey procedures were different then what is described in DOT
Regulafion 49 CFR 173.443(a). In the first round of Health Physics Interrogatories, the
DRC requested additional information on release surveys for ore tmcks, intermodal
containers, equipment, and product dmms. Specifically, the DRC requested two
procedures (End Dump Trailer Acceptance, Handling and Release, PBL-9, Rev. No. R-0
and Intermodal Container Acceptance, Handling and Release, PBL-2, Rev. No. R-0) that
were referenced in the Mill's ALARA Program. The DRC also requested that the
Licensee provide an explanation why the Mill did not use survey techniques that were
described in 49 CFR 173.443(a) and a description on how these release surveys were
documented.
In the Licensee's response to the first round of Health Physics Interrogatories, the
licensee provided the procedures requested by the DRC plus additional information on
survey techniques and documentation. In response to the DRC inquiry of 49 CFR
173.443(a), the Licensee quoted 49 CFR 173.443(b) which states other survey techniques
may be used if they are of equal or greater efficiency.
After reviewing the Licensee's response to the first round of Health Physics
Interrogatories, the DRC requested additional information. In the second round of Health
Physics Interrogatories the DRC asked the Licensee to "Provide a procedure that
instructs radiation safety technicians on how to perform and document radiological
surveys for releasing equipment from the Mill's restricted area. " In the Procedures, End
Dump Trailer Acceptance, Handling and Release, PBL-9, Rev. No. R-0 and Intermodal
Container Acceptance, Handling and Release, PBL-2, Rev. No. R-0, in Secfion 5 of both
these procedures say that decontaminated ore tmcks and intermodal containers will be
surveyed to document that the tmcks and intermodal containers meet the different DOT
release criteria. These procedures did not instmct the Mill's Radiation Technicians the
proper survey methods to perform radiological surveys to verify that the DOT criteria
have been met. To verify that release survey meet the requirements to 49 CFR
173.443(b), the DRC asked the Licensee to "Provide efficiency calculations to determine
the efficiency ofthis method. Include the survey procedure used, the efficiency of the
meters and probes used in relation to U-238. Show that the meters and probes that
are/will be used has the appropriate sensitivity to provide a small enough reading to
measure the required release limits. "
In the Licensee's response to the second round of Health Physics Interrogatories dated
August 14, 2009 it states "Denison will add new Section 6.0 to the Mill's Radiation
Protection Manual which will provide details on the actual survey procedures. "
Additionally, the Licensee added language to the End Dump Trailer Acceptance,
Handling and Release, PBL-9, Rev. No. R-0 and the Intermodal Container Acceptance,
Handling and Release, PBL-2, Rev. No. R-0 referencing this new section in the Radiation
Protection Manual. The September 14, 2009 submittal included a new section that it-was
described as "This Section contains the following procedures for the release of equipment
and product drums from the Mill: (1) restricted release of exclusive use vehicles; and (2)
Page 22 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Application: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
un-restricted release of tractors, trailers, intermodal containers ("IMCs') and other
vehicles, other equipment and product drums. " Also in the August 14, 2009 submittal,
the Licensee provided additional survey information and MDA calculations to show that
their survey techniques met the requirements to 49 CFR 173.443(b) of equal or greater
efficiency as compared to the survey requirements in 49 CFR 173.443(a). When
reviewing the MDA calculations the DRC requested additional information via email of
copies of the survey meters used calibration sheets. The DRC also contacted the
manufacture of the meters that the Licensee uses for more inforrnation on the efficiency
of the meters for U-238. Using the information from the manufacturer ofthe meters and
probes used at the Mill, the DRC calculated the MDA for Alpha radiation and found that
the meter and probe used to release End Dump tmcks was not sensitive enough for Alpha
radiation to meet regulatory requirements.
Based off of the information provided in the calibration sheets and the information
received from the survey meters manufacturer, the DRC requested the Licensee that "Re-
evaluate the efficiency for the Ludlum Model-3 survey meters with the 44-9 GM pancake
probe using U-238" in the third round of Interrogatories. The Ludlum Model-3 survey
meters with the 44-9 GM pancake probe used by the Licensee were calibrated with a high
energy Beta radiation source (Cs-137) and not an Alpha radiation source (U-238 or
similar). In addition, the meters and probes are source checked with a high energy Beta
radiation source (Co-60) and not an Alpha radiation source (U-238 or similar) which
makes their efficiencies higher than they actually are. Due to the high Beta radiation
sources used to calibrate and source check the Ludlum Model-3 survey meters with the
44-9 GM pancake probes, the efficiency numbers used in the MDA calculations that the
Licensee provided were not representative to the Mill's radiological conditions.
In the Licensee's response, dated March 3, 2010, they agreed with the MDA that the
DRC calculated for combined alpha and beta for the Ludlum Model-3 survey meter with
a 44-9 GM pancake probe is 2,906 dpm/lOOcm^. However, Tthe Licensee argued that
"the meter and probe are used to measure contamination on an ore truck or other
equipment, it is reading both alpha and beta " and "the combined alpha and beta reading
of less than 2,906 dpm/100 cm would be indicated as a non-detect. " The Licensee
continued "a total count reading of non-detect (<2.2OO906 dpm/1 OOcm^) would mean
that, for ore trucks, the total alpha contamination would be less than about 1,500
dpm/1 OOcm^. This is sisnificantlv less than the DOT standard for restricted release of
2,200 dpm/cm^. " This argument is incorrect not acceptable because the Licensee is
comparing a combined Alpha/Beta reading to a #ie-2,200 dpm/100 cm^ limit for Alpha,
which is not a combined limit for Alpha and Beta contamination^-«i44The licensee
needs to show compliance for both separately.
However, the licensee made the following commitment in their response dated March 3,
2010 "Denison will use alpha detectors with the same or equal efficiency as the alpha
detectors currently being used at the Mill for surveying equipment for unrestricted
release at the site, such as the Ludlum Model 177 counter and 43-5 alpha detector, for
measuring potential alpha contamination on tucks and other vehicles and equipment. "
Page 23 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Application: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
Methods to estimate the MDA (minimum detectable activity) for survey instmments and
counters are discussed in NRC'S NUREG-1507 (Minimum Detectable Concentrations
with Typical Radiation Survey Instmments for Various Contaminants and Field
Condifions, 1998).
The licensee further justified this commitment with the following calculation:
From NUREG-1507 (Equation 3-10), the following is given for the MDA when
measuring surface contamination:
MDA = 3 + 4.65VCB
Kt
Where:
MDA = minimum detectable activity in disintegrations/min/100 cm ;
CB = background count rate (epm);
t = counting time (min); and
K = proportionality constant which includes adjustments for detector efficiency and
geometry (e.g. coverage relative to 100 cm"^).
Typical Denison data for the Model 177 counter with 43-5 alpha detector are:
Background count rate (CB) = 20 epm
Background counting time (t) = 1 min.
Detector alpha efficiency = 11 % (0.11)
Probe active area = 50 cm^ (or 0.50 of 100 cm^ area under consideration)
Using these values in Equation (1), the MDA is estimated as:
MDA= 3 + 4.65 V 20
(0.11x0.50x1)
= 430 dpm/100 cm (rounded to two significant figures).
This MDA is well below both the 49 CFR173.443 standard of 22 dpm/cm^ (2200
dpm/100 cm^)for non-fixed alpha contamination for restricted release of ore tmcks and
other equipment, and NRC's 1000 dpm/100 cm^ standard for non-fixed alpha
contamination for unrestricted release of trucks and all other equipment from the Mill's
restricted area (see NRC Regulatory Guide 8.30, Health Physics Surveys in Uranium
Recovery Facilities at Table 2 and Section 2.7). The DRC has reviewed the additional
information and commitments in the Licensee's response to third round of Health Physics
interrogatories and was able to confirm that the Licensee has complied with requirements
in UAC R313-15-501 (1 )&(2).
5.5.3 Respiratory Protection Program
The Licensee in their final revision, described the Respiratory Protection Program (RPP)
as follows: "The Respiratory Protection Program is establishedfor the Mill to protect its
workers from occupational exposure to harmful concentrations of radioactive and/or
toxic materials in the air. " The DRC evaluated Licensee's Respiratory Protection
Page 24 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Application: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
Program on its compliance with UAC R313-15-702 through 703 and NRC Regulatory
Guide 8.15 as referenced by the Licensee in Appendix I, the ALARA Program, of the
Febmary 2007 License Renewal Application.
During the review the DRC staff requested additional information from the Licensee on
their RPP in the first round of Health Physics Interrogatories regarding respirator
issuance, fit testing, record keeping, radiological surveys of respirators, and respiratory
protecfion procedures required by R313-15-702(d) and NRC Regulatory Guide 8.15,
Section 3.2. The Licensee revised their RPP and resubmitted it for review. After
reviewing the revised RPP, DRC staff was able to confirm that the Licensee has complied
with the requirements in UAC R313-15-702 through 703 and NRC Regulatory Guide
8.15.
5.5.4 Surety
The surety is reviewed annually by the DRC and is current and in compliance with UAC
R313-24-4 ,which references 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 9. However, several
changes have been made to this section including the following:
Chloroform Remediation Costs (License Conditions 9.5 and 10.20)
A reference was added to the License to require the annual surety estimate include future
costs for completion of groundwater remediation, now required by new License
Condition 10.20. This groundwater remediation is mandated by the Co-Executive
Secretary of the Water Quality Board, and will soon be executed in a revised Ground
Water Corrective Action Order (Order) for the known chloroform plume (and related
contaminants) found on and around the Mill site. It is appropriate to account for these
costs in the annual surety estimate, in that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has
determined that the chloroform contaminant plume is 1 le.(2) byproduct material. These
increased costs are to be added to the surety estimate report due March 4, 2012. This will
allow sufficient time for the Division to complete public comment and to execute the
fmal Order, which is soon to begin. In the future, as the Licensee completes remediation
ofthis groundwater contamination, and receives approval by the Co-Executive Secretary,
the Division can consider possible reduction of the annual surety estimate.
Surety Changes for New Cover Design
License Condition 9.5 requires the Licensee to annually evaluate the estimated costs for
closure of both the Mill facility and tailings cells. Inherently, these cost estimates must
be closely coordinated with the Reclamation Plan that is currently approved by the
Executive Secretary. Evaluation of the status of the surety is also an important part of
License renewal.
As discussed below, the Permit since 2005 has included a requirement for the Licensee to
submit an Inflltration and Contaminant Transport Model (ICTM) Report to evaluate the
long-term ability of the NRC approved tailings cell cover design (riprap rock armor, etc)
to protect local groundwater quality, public health and the environment (Permit, Part
I.H.2). To date, this evaluation remains incomplete and unapproved. Meanwhile, the
Licensee has sought design approval for re-lining Cell 4A and new constmction of Cell
Page 25 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Application: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
4B. To facilitate this expansion, the DRC has authorized limited changes to the
Reclamation Plan, discussed below, which allowed- the Licensee to horizontally extend
the existing NRC approved cover system over these two new tailings cells.
However, without resolution of the ICTM Report, the DRC is unable to determine if the
Reclamation Plan and its tailings cell cover system design (approved by the NRC) and
the current surety amount is adequate. Consequently, it is unknown if the existing surety
amount required by the License is sufficient to bring the facility to closure in a manner
that will provide long-term protection of public health, groundwater quality, and the
environment.
As an attempt to strengthen the surety assumptions, the Licensee has proposed submittal
of a new Reclamation Plan (Revision 5.0) which includes a new tailing cell cover design,
in addition tolieu of currently approved Revision 3.2 and proposed Revision 4.0 which is
still under DRC consideration, both of which incorporate the existing NRC-approved
cover svstem (pending review and approval of the ICTM Report). The Licensee has
claimed that Revision 5.0 will incorporate the analysis found in the latest version ofthe
ICTM Report, submitted by -the Licensee on March 31, 2010, that has yet to be
approved.
To facilitate license renewal,- the Licensee has proposed to increaseevaluate the surety
amount to reflect the unit costs and unit quantities that will be implied by and
incorporated in Revision 5.0, and to amend the surety accordingly. This interim increase
inevaluation of -the surety is oufiined in new License Condition 9.11 .C, which provides
that in no circumstances will the surety be less than required under the currently approved
Reclamation Plan. The Executive Secretary has determined to accept this proposal on
faith, with the understanding that an increase inevaluation of the -surety, and a potential
increase is better than no increasoevaluation at all.
A meeting was held with the Licensee on September 14, 2011 regarding the License
Renewal. After the meeting, a follow up e-mail was sent to DUSA that specified that
"Under no circumstances shall the Revised Surety be less than $18,777,388, which was
approved by the Executive Secretary on December 20, 2010. "
DUSA submitted the new Reclamation Plan (Revision 5.0), which includes a new tailing
cell cover design on September 29, 2011. The DRC conducted a cursory review of parts
of the submittal, which showed that the surety for proposed reclamation, utilizing the
proposed new tailings cell cover design, was actually less ($ 17,708,939) than the
$18,777,388 previously approved by the Execufive Secretary. Therefore, the DRC will
not accept this revised Surety on good faith. Ssurety for the White Mesa Uranium Mill
will remain at a minimum of $18,777,388 until the ICTM Report and Reclamafion Plan
(Revisions 4.0 and 5.0) are approved.
After resolufion and DRC approval of the ICTM Report and Reclamafion Plan (Revisions
4.0 and 5.0), the renewed License now calls for a more final update of the surety estimate
in new License Condition 9.1 I.E.
Page 26 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Application: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
It is important to note, that because the new wording in License Condition 9.1 prohibits
new tailings cell constmction without resolution of License Condition 9.11, the Licensee
will also be compelled to resolve the ICTM Report, update the Reclamation Plan, and
adjust the surety to the satisfaction of the Execufive Secretary, before any new tailings
cell constmction.
A new paragraph was also added to end of License Condition 9.5, to mandate that the
Licensee include groundwater remediation costs in the next annual surety evaluation
report, due on March 4, 2012. These added costs will need to address corrective actions
for the chloroform and nitrate contaminant plume known to exist at the White Mesa
facility.
5.5.5 Reclamation Plan
The original Section 8, Reclamation Plan, of Volume One of the 2007 License Renewal
application the Licensee indicated that the Reclamation Plan for the license renewal was
transmitted separately by letter but the Licensee did not provide the date of the letter. In
the first round of Engineering Interrogatories the DRC Engineering staff noted the
renewal application failed to include a copy of the Reclamation Plan, and requested that
the Licensee "... update and complete the Section 8 of the License Renewal Application,
regarding the Reclamation Plan. Please include the current approved version ofthe
Reclamation Plan as an Appendix to the License Renewal Application."
For reference, when DRC became an Agreement State (August, 2004), the Reclamation
Plan in force was Revision 3.0 (approved by the NRC), and included among other things,
a riprap cover layer over Tailings Cells 1, 2, and 3.
Since March, 2005, the Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit (Permit) for the White
Mesa facility has required the Licensee to complete an infiltration and contaminant
transport model (ICTM) report to justify the tailings cover design. These requirements
found in Part I.H.2 of the current Permit, provided that:
1. The Licensee submit an ICTM Report, for Co-Executive Secretary approval, to
evaluate the long-term ability of the tailings cover system (and Reclamation Plan)
to meet performance standards set out in Permit, Part I.D.8, including, but not
limited to:
a. Minimization of infiltration into the radon barrier and tailings
b. Prevention of accumulation of tailings leachate on the bottom tailings liner
("bath-tub" effect), and
c. Protecfion of underlying groundwater quality at point of compliance wells
identified in the Permit, and
2. Upon approval of the ICTM Report, the Co-Executive Secretary may mandate
that the Licensee revise the Reclamation Plan to protect public health and the
environment.
Page 27 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Application: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
While a significant effort has been spent by both DRC and -the Licensee in the last six
years on the ICTM Report, the Division has been unable to resolve the ICTM project and
its evaluation, and must conclude the ICTM Report is yet incomplete. For details on
progress to date, see chronology in Attachment 2, below. As a result, the Permit
requirement is currently un-fulfiUed, and Executive Secretary unable to confirm that the
cover system (and the Reclamation Plan) areis adequate to protect underlying
groundwater quality, public health, and the environment.
Current status of the Licensee Reclamation Plan and resolution of the ICTM Report and
cover system evaluation is further complicated by three other events, namely:
1. Tailings Cell 4A Re-Lining Approval -the 2005 Permh required the Licensee re-
line Tailings Cell 4A to meet Best Available Technology Standards. As a part of
this design review and approval, the Licensee revised and the Executive Secretary
approved a revision of the Licensee Reclamation Plan on August 4, 2008. This
version was tete^-referred to later as Revision 3.1, and included, in part, a
horizontal extension of the riprap type cover system over Tailings Cells 1, 2, 3,
and 4A. Tailings disposal in Cell 4A began in September, 2008.
2. Tailings Cell 4B Design and Construction Approval - in a submittal dated
December 7, 2007- the Licensee submitted a proposal to constmct a new Tailings
Cell 4B. After DRC review, the Executive Secretary proposed approval of the
engineering design and specifications for the new cell, and solicited public
comments in April and May, 2010. This design was authorized by DRC in a
license amendment issued on June 17, 2010, and constmction shortly followed.
During constmction, the Licensee submitted a revised Reclamation Plan to
provide cover system details for closure of Tailings Cells 1, 2, 3, 4A, and 4B.
This version became known as Revision 3.2, and was approved by DRC on
January 26, 2011. The Licensee also revised the surety to accommodate future
cover construction on Cell 4B, and the new surety amount was approved on
January 27, 2011. Tailings disposal in Cell 4B shortly followed.
3. Proposed Cover System Design Overhaul - by letter of November 25, 2009, and
as a response to the first round of Engineering Interrogatories, the Licensee
provided Reclamation Plan Revision 4.0. Reclamation Plan Revision 4.0 updated
Revision 3.2, which was based on Revision 3.0 approved bv NRC in 2000, to
incorporate changes in site conditions and programs since 2000, but did not
propose any changes to the existing NRC-approved cover design. In order to
properly approve Revision 4.0 DRC would have to evaluate the engineering basis
for the existing NRC-approved cover design. However, Denison advised DRC
that the ICTM modeling results to date indicate that, in order to improve the
performance of the cover svstem, the existing NRC-approved cover should be
replaced with a vegetative cover, to be designed in accordance with the ICTM
results. Denison and DRC agreed that resources would be better spent finalizing
the ICTM Report and obtaining Executive Secretarv approval ofthe new
vegetative cover design, rather than in performing an engineering review of an
Page 28 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Application: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
existing cover design that will be replacedin contrast to the previous versions.
Revision 1.0 included a vegetated cover that was to be constmcted over Tailings
Cells 1, 2, 3, and 4A. Unfortunately, the design changes suggested in Revision
A.O wore made before any DRC approval of the ICTM Report. As shown in
Attachment 2, DRC approval of the ICTM Report has not yet been issued.
Consequently, tho design changes proposed in Revision 4.0 were and still are pre
mature.
DRC issued a review of a preliminary conceptual design of the Licensee proposed
vegetative cover svstemthe Licensee proposed vegetated cover system vi via a URS
supplemental interrogatory (Supplemental Interrogatory lA) dated April 6, 2011. The
interrogatory requested additional information from the Licensee to support the
transmitted design (vegetative cover svstemVtransmitted design (vegetated cover svstem).
To date. To date, the Licensee has yettoyeWe respond to the April 6, 2011 DRC
Interrogatory lA. However, the Licensee has submitted Reclamation Plan (Revision
5.0), which details the proposed vegetative cover system, and has advised DRC that it is
now able to respond to the April 6, 2011 interrogatory, based on the more detailed design
ofthe cover system incorporated into the Reclamation Plan (Revision 5.0).
In April, 2011, DRC staff approached -the Licensee with a request for financial assistance
to expedite review of Revision 45.0, the ICTM Report, and issuance of license renewal,
by outsourcing the review work to the URS Corporation (DRC's consultant). To date,
the DRC continues in its shortage of financial and staff resources to complete the work
needed to resolve the compliance status of the Reclamation Plan, Revision 45.0, and
ICTM Report. The As of today, the Licensee has agreed toalso boon non responsive in
providiftge the requested additional financial resources under a Memorandum of
Agreement to be referred to in License Condition 9.11. as described below.
The Executive Secretary has determined that approval of the ICTM Report is pre-
requisite to approval of the proposed Reclamation Plan, Revision 45.0 design. In order to
expedite issuance of the License renewal, the Executive Secretary has unilaterally
prohibited future constmction of any new tailings cells (beyond Cell 4B) until the
Licensee secures approval of both the ICTM Report and a revised Reclamation Plan
(Revision 5).
Revised Reclamation Plan, Revision 5.0 (License Condition 9.11)
Ifi-License Condition 9.11 requires that a number of items be completed before any new
tailings cells will be constmcted at the White Mesa Mill. These items are as follows:
1) Secure Approval of the Inflltration and Contaminant Transport Modeling (ICTM)
Report - by the Co-Executive Secretary of the Water Quality Board pursuant to the
requirements of Part I.H.2 of the Permit. Said ICTM Report shall demonstrate that
the final tailings cell cover system design, specifications, and construction will meet
the long term performance requirements established in Part I.D.8 of the Permit.
Page 29 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Application: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
2) Submit a Revised Reclamation Plan (Revision 5.0) - on or before October 1, 2011
the licensee shall submit a Revised Reclamafion Plan (Revision 5.0) for Executive
Secretary review and approval. Said revised plan shall:
• Provide all engineering design, specifications, constmction, and other details
regarding site closure and a new cover design for the final tailings embankments
(Cells 1, 2, 3, 4A, and 4B), and
• Be based upon and jusfified by the ICTM Report that complies with the
requirements of Parts I.H.2 and I.D.8 of the Permit, as approved by the Co-
Executive Secretary.
3) Submit Interim Surety Cost Estimate Report - on or before October 1, 2011, the
licensee shall submit a revised surety report for Executive Secretary review and
acceptance. Said report shall include a detailed and comprehensive description and
justification for all unit quantities and unit costs related to site closure and the new
cover design to be proposed under License Condition 9.11 .A. Under no
circumstances shall the surety amount be less than that already approved by the
Executive Secretary on December 20, 2010 ($18,777,388). After Executive
Secretary acceptance, the licensee shall submit written evidence to demonstrate the
revised interim surety is fully funded within 60 calendar days of written Executive
Secretary acceptance.
To review the above submittals, the Licensee will reimburse the Executive Secretary for
all third-party consultant review costs of the ICTM, Reclamation Plan (Revision 5.0), and
Interim Surety Report, and any subsequent submittals determined necessary by the
Executive Secretary. Reimbursement of the above review costs shall be in accordance
with a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to include deadlines and a timeline agreed to
by both the Licensee and the Executive Secretary.
After Executive Secretary Approval of the Revised Reclamation Plan (Revision 5.0) and
ICTM Report, the Licensee will submit as final surety cost estimate report for Executive
Secretary review and approval within 30 calendar days. Upon Executive Secretary
approval of the final Surety amount, the Licensee will be required to submit written
evidence of the final approved surety amount within 60 calendar days.
5.6 En vironmental Protection
5.6.1 Environmental Protection Program
A review ofthe Environmental Protection Program was conducted as a part ofthe
Division's evaluation of the License Renewal Application. Details follow below:
Page 30 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Application: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
5.6.1.1 Semi-Annual Effluent Monitoring
The Licensee is required to perform environmental monitoring for many media and
points of compliance. The Licensee used guidance from NRC Regulatory Guide 4.14 to
develop their effluent monitoring program. The following monitoring is done at the Mill:
1) Bi-annual stack effluent sampling at the yellowcake drier to determine flow rate.
The Licensee reports the uCi/cc concentration in the stack emissions and the stacks
radionuclide release rate is uCi/sec for Uranium-Natural (U-Nat), Th-230, Ra-226
and Pb-210 at each of the stacks sampled.
2) Quarterly high volume air particulate (HVAP) monitoring at five locations around
the milling facility (stations BHV-1, 2, 4 thm 6). Weekly samples are collected and
then composited for quarterly analysis. The analytical parameters that the samples
are analyzed for are U-Nat, Thorium-230, Radium-226, Lead-210 activity and
particulate loading.
3) Semi-annual surface water sampling is conducted at two locations, Cottonwood
Wash and Westwater Creek. During this review the wildlife ponds were also
identified by the DRC as surface water within the Mill's property boundary, but
they are not currently monitored. Surface water samples are analyzed for U-Nat,
Th-230 and Ra-226.
4) Quarterly gamma monitoring is done utilizing passive integrating devices
thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs).
5) Radon monitoring is done quarterly at various on-site locations and annually at the
tailings cells under the NESHAPs program. Potential doses to receptors are also
modeled to ensure compliance with applicable standards, at the same locations as
HVAP monitoring stations.
6) Vegetation sampling is done at three locations in the early Spring, late Spring, and
in the Fall. They are analyzed for Radium-226 and Lead-210 activity.
7) Soil sampling is collected annually during the third quarter at stations BHV-1 thm
6. All soil samples will be analyzed, on a dry basis, for Ra-226 and U-Nat.
8) Groundwater sampling, as discussed below under GWQDP.
9) Seeps and Springs sampling is performed as part of the monitoring done for the
GWQDP.
During review of the license renewal application, DRC staff concluded that the frequency
and type of environmental monitoring for the White Mesa facility is adequate.
Page 31 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Applicafion: Draft Safety Evaluafion Report
October, 2011
5.6.1.2 Chloroform Investigation
The Licensee has conducted a Chloroform Investigation of on-site groundwater as part of
the Environmental Protecfion Program since August, 1999. As a part ofthis
investigation, a series of quarterly monitoring reports has also been submitted to the
Division for review by the Co-Executive Secretary of the Utah Water Quality Board (Co-
Executive Secretary). During the course of this investigation the Licensee has installed
27 monitoring wells, mostly located along the eastem margin of the facility. During the
course of this investigation, the Licensee has converted 5 of these to active pumping
wells as a means of providing hydraulic control and removal of the chloroform plume.
Said pumping is the first phase of groundwater corrective action at the facility. For
fiirther information, see groundwater remediation section below.
5.6.1.3 Nitrate Investigation
During preparation of a Permit Modification for the DUSA White Mesa Mill in 2008,
DRC staff identified that a Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) [hereafter Nitrate] plume existed at the
Mill in a number of wells on site. On September 30, 2008, the DRC sent DUSA a
Request for Voluntary Plan and Schedule to Investigate and Remediate Nitrate plume.
On January 27, 2009, DRC and DUSA entered into a Stipulated Consent Agreement
(UGW-09-03). In the Consent Agreement, DUSA agreed to conduct a contaminafion
investigation to determine the source of the Nitrate contamination. On December 30,
2009 DUSA submitted a Contaminafion Invesfigation Report (CIR) to the DRC. After
DRC review ofthe CIR, the DRC nofified DUSA in an October 5, 2010 letter that the
CIR was incomplete and additional work was needed. In an October 26, 2010 meeting,
DUSA presented a Theory that the high Nitrate concentrations observed in the on-site
wells could be due to a Natural Nitrate Salt Reservoir. This Theory was based on
DUSA's review of scientific literature. Both sides agreed that this new theory and the
other potential sources identified in the October 5, 2010 DRC letter warranted additional
investigation.
After over two years of investigation it has been determined that there are site conditions
that make it difficult to determine the total number, locations, magnitude of contribution,
and proportion of the various nitrate and chloride source(s) at the White Mesa site.
Therefore, DUSA and the Executive Secretary agreed that it has not been possible to date
to determine the source(s), cause(s), attribution, magnitudes of contribution, and
proportion(s) of the local nitrate and chloride in groundwater and thereby cannot
eliminate Mill activities as a potential cause, either in full or in part, of the contamination.
As a result, DUSA and the Executive Secretary agree that resources will be better spent
in developing a Correcfive Action Plan (CAP) in accordance with UAC R317- 6-6.15(D),
rather than continuing with further investigations as to the source(s) and attribution ofthe
groundwater contamination. A Stipulated Consent Agreement (SCA) was signed by both
parties on September 30, 2011. The SCA mandates that DUSA submit a CAP for Nitrate
contamination observed on site on or before November 30, 2011. A CAP for Nitrate
contamination was submitted by Denison on or before that date.
Page 32 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Application: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
5.6.1.4 Groundwater Quality Discharge Permit
The most recent modifications of the Mill's Groundwater Quality Discharge Permit
(Permit) are summarized in the table below.
Modification / Execution Date Summary / Description - Including:
July 14,2011 Change in Slimes Drain Recovery Monitoring
frequency
Febmary 15,2011 Approval to use Tailings Cell 4B
June 17, 2010 Approval of Tailings Cell 4B design / specifications
January 20, 2010 Determination of background groundwater quality and
Ground Water Compliance Levels (GWCLs) for each
well / contaminant
In the January 20, 2010 Permit Modification, the Co-Executive Secretary approved both
GWCLs and background ground water quality determinations after consideration of
statistical analysis of historic and recent groundwater quality sampling data at the 22
POC wells near the tailings cells. Prior to this modification, the Co-Executive Secretary
had determined groundwater monitoring frequency for these 22 POC, resulting in a
baseline frequency of semi-annual and quarterly based on groundwater velocity
determined near each well. Quarterly sampling is required for those wells where
groundwater velocity is equal to or greater than 10 feet / year (see Permit, Part I.E.I).
A minor amendment to license condition [11.2(C)] was added to the renewed RML to
indicate the Licensee's obligation to have at all times a validcomply with the
requirements of its current Groundwater Quality Discharge Permit for all ground water
related environmental monitoring and protection requirements, and that no transfer of the
License will be approved unless the Groundwater Quality Discharge Permit is also
transferred.
5.6.1.5 Ground Water Remediation
In August, 1999, the Co-Executive Secretary issued a Ground Water Corrective Action
Order to the White Mesa facility to require investigation of chloroform contamination in
the shallow aquifer in well MW-4. During the course of the investigation, and beginning
in April, 2003, the Licensee began active pumping of two wells (MW-4 and TW4-19) as
a means of controlling the chloroform contamination. Since that time, three other active
pumping wells have been deployed by the Licensee, including wells MW-26 (August,
2003), TW4-20 (July, 2005) and TW4-4 (January, 2010).
The Co-Executive Secretary recognizes that additional monitoring and pumping wells
may be needed in the future in order to demonstrate the full physical extent of the
contamination and its hydraulic intercept and control. To date, the Co-Executive
Secretary has used an ad hoc approach to inform the Licensee when new monitoring or
pumping wells are needed. However, a formal process will soon be implemented by
which the Licensee will have performance standards to guide decisions regarding the
adequacy of monitoring and hydraulic control. Requirements for this future work will be
Page 33 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Application: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
detailed in a formal Corrective Action Order to be prepared by the Co-Executive
Secretary and exposed to public comment, as mandated by the Utah Ground Water
Quality Protecfion Rules [UAC R317-6-6.15(E)].
In order to recognize the upcoming issuance of a Ground Water Corrective Action Order,
License Condition 10.20 was added to require the Licensee to remediate the chloroform
contamination, and related co-contaminants, in a manner approved by the Co-Executive
Secretary. The new license condition also recognizes that all of the groundwater
contamination and wastewater generated by any remedial effort is by definition an
11 .e(2) by-product material, and therefore also regulated under the License. In the event
that other groundwater contaminants are identified at the facility, and remediation
required, these may be added to the license at a future date.
Related changes were also made at License Condition 9.5, to reference new Condition
10.20, as a means to ensure that the annual surety estimate is adequate to remediate
groundwater quality at the facility, in the event that the Licensee defaults before
completing this activity.
5.6.1.6 Changes to Cell 1, 2, and 3 Leak Detection Requirements
On June 3, 2010 the Licensee notified the Utah Division of Radiafion Control (DRC) by
telephone that on June 2, 2010 an accumulation of fluid was discovered within the
Tailings Cell 1 leak detection system (LDS). An initial pH paper test showed that the
fluid in the LDS indicated a pH of 2.0 to 3.0; therefore, the fluid found in the LDS
originated from Cell 1. Written notificafion of the Tailings Cell 1 leak was made in a
June 7, 2010 the-Licensee letter. In the letter, the Licensee states "...a repair report will
be submitted to the Executive Secretary with 30 days of the initial telephone
notification... " This repair report was not submitted by July 5, 2010 as committed to by
the Licensee. Instead, after discussions with DRC, a Plan and Schedule for the repairs
was prepared and submitted on August 18, 2010.
To repair the liner, the Licensee lowered the solution level in Cell 1 to 5613.10 feet amsl.
This appeared to eliminate the flow of wastewater to the LDS. The Licensee
maintenance identified some FML damage and performed repairs during the period when
the water level was lowest. Following the repairs, the Cell 1 liquid level was allowed to
retum to the June 3, 2010 level. The Cell 1 LDS remained dry until fluid was observed
again in the LDS on August 7, 2010. The DRC was made aware of the August 7, 2010
Cell 1 leak in an August 8, 2010 telephone call. During an August 12, 2010, telephone
call, the DRC agreed with the Licensee that both the June and August 2010
identifications of fluid in the Cell 1 LDS were part of one event. Apparently, the repairs
made to the Cell 1 liner prior to August 7, 2010 were not successful in idenfifying all the
damage which required repair.
During the August 12, 2010 phone call, the Licensee agreed to provide the DRC with a
written plan and schedule for: 1) determination of the root cause, 2) identification ofthe
extent of damage, and
3) execution and reporting of repairs to the Cell 1 liner system.
Page 34 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Application: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
In an August 18, 2010 the-Licensee letter, the Licensee provided a plan and schedule for
Cell 1 Inspection and Repair. The Licensee's proposed plan and schedule was to be
conducted in phases.
After review of the August 18, 2010 Cell 1 repair plan and schedule, the DRC identified
three concems, as follows:
• The proposed repair plan schedule was open ended and there was no specific date
where the Licensee committed it would have the Cell 1 leak fully repaired and
the LDS dry.
• The phased approach as proposed may take several years before the Cell 1 leak
repaired. This was not appropriate, nor was it timely, the Licensee needed to set a
date when the entire liner will be checked and repaired above 5,613 feet amsl.
• The August 18, 2010 repair plan failed to include a table for the estimated Cell 1
leakage rate for the leak identified on August 7, 2010.
On August 23, 2010 the DRC shared these concerns with the Licensee in a conference
call. In the meeting, the Licensee agreed to submit a revised repair plan by August 30,
2010. This repair plan would include a Cell 1 leakage rate for the leak identified on
August 7, 2010 and a date when the entire Cell 1 liner will be checked and repaired fully
and completely across all inside slope areas above 5,613 feet amsl, if necessary.
An enforcement conference was held with the Licensee by telephone on September 15,
2010. Commitments made were later documented in a September 22, 2010 DRC
Confirmatory Action Letter, which included the following:
1) Determination of the root cause of discrepancies determined in the Licensee's
reported LDS fiow rates by September 30, 2010,
2) Completion of a video log ofthe Cell 1 LDS access pipe, and submittal ofa report
thereof by November 1, 2010,
3) Completion of any additional corrective actions that might be required by the
Executive Secretary after review of the November 1, 2010 report, and
4) Completion of the Cell 1 FML investigation and all necessary repairs on the
inside sideslope above an elevation of 5,613 ft amsl on or before July 31, 2012.
5) Submittal ofa Cell 1 Repair Report with the next quarterly DMT Report, required
by Part I.F.2 of the Permit, i.e., due on September 1, 2012.
In a submittal of November 11, 2010, the Licensee provided a copy of the video log,
which showed a significant amount of blockage at the bottom of the Cell 1 LDS access
pipe (dirt and debris). After review, the Executive Secretary concluded that: l)4he
Licensee had been neglectful improvements in maintenance of the Cell 1 LDS access
pipe and that improvements were warranted, 2) the blockage could have impeded both
free draining conditions of the LDS, and rapid reporting and detection of a FML leak, and
Page 35 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Application: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
3) the leak detection method and equipment historically used at Cells 1, 2, and 3 was
ineffective, and in need of revisionimprovement.
In an enforcement conference via telephone on November 17, 2010, the Licensee agreed
to remove the blockage from the Cell 1 LDS access pipe and re-mn a confirmation video
log. Division staff also asked the Licensee to perform a second video log of the Cell 3
LDS access pipe, and perform similar maintenance if it was found to also be blocked. No
additional work was requested for the Cell 2 LDS access pipe. In a December 27, 2010
submittal the Licensee provided video logs of the LDS access pipes at both Cells 1 and 3.
These logs included conditions both before and after cleaning of the access pipes.
In an enforcement conference via telephone on April 28, 2011, the Licensee made
additional commitments, which were later formalized in a May 10, 2011 Confirmatory
Action Letter by the Division. The additional actions required were by June 1, 2011: 1)
submit photographic evidence that the LDS access pipes had been raised at Cells 1 and 3,
and 2) submittal of a plan and schedule to replace the current LDS monitoring method
and equipment, for approval of the Executive Secretary.
As a result of these activities, the Executive Secretary has decided to modify License
Condition 11.3 to make certain improvements to the performance standards /
requirements for LDS monitoring, operation, and maintenance at Cells 1, 2, and 3, as
follows:
1) Annual video log is required. In the event that any blockage is determined, the
Licensee will remove all blockages within 14 calendar days of discovery, and submit
a written report for Executive Secretary approval within 30 calendar days of
discovery.
2) Improve LDS monitoring, by measuring depths to fluids in the LDS in a manner
approved by the Executive Secretary, removal of the fluid within 24-hours of
discovery, and physical measurement of the volumes removed by methods such as
totalizing flow meters, filling of graduated tanks or containers, etc. It is expected that
these monitoring improvements would be done as a future revision to the DMT
Monitoring Plan required by Part I.F.2 of the Permit.
3) Deadline for completion of corrective actions is needed, as evidenced by the
compliance history described above. Therefore, the written report required within 30
calendar days of LDS fluid discovery, will include a deadline for completion of
corrective actions.
4) Mandate that all fluids removed from a LDS access pipe will be retumed to an
authorized disposal cell, regardless of the volume or flow rate of such fluid.
5) Additional written reporting requirements, including: 1) an annual video log report
and documentation of the timeliness of any blockage removal (if observed), 2) upon
determination of cell leakage, a written report that includes either evidence of
corrective actions already completed, or submittal of a detailed plan and schedule for
said completion.
Page 36 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Application: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
6 ACCIDENTS
When applying for a specific license UAC R313-22-32 (8)(c) identifies what is required
in an emergency response plan for radioactive material. The NRC in Regulatory Guide
3.67 and NUREG-1140 has provided supplemental material to assist an applicant in
developing emergency response plans. Below discusses the Mill's submittals:
6.1 Emergency Response Plan
In Appendix D of the 2007 License Renewal Application, the Licensee documented the
Mill's Emergency Response Plan. During the review of the 2007 License Renewal
Application, the DRC noticed the submitted Emergency Response Plan did not
sufficiently address all of Staff Emergency Assignments that should be covered. These
include but were not limited to Radiological Surveys and Assessments, Decontamination
ofthe Mill's Personnel and Facility, First Aid and etc. In the first round of Health Physics
Interrogatories, the DRC requested additional information on how the Mill plans on
addressing these and other issues in the event of an emergency.
In the Licensee's response to the first round of Health Physics Interrogatories, the
Licensee provided a revised Emergency Response Plan (Rev. 2) dated April 20, 2009.
After reviewing the revised Emergency Response Plan, DRC staff was able to confirm
that the Licensee has complied with the requirements in UAC R313-22-32 (8)(c), NRC
Regulatory Guide 3.67 and NUREG-1140.
6.2 Transportation Accidents Plan
In Appendix N of the 2007 License Renewal Application, the Licensee documented the
Mill's Transportation Accident Response Plan for Uranium Concentrate Spill. The Mill
has established this procedure to assist in a transportation accident involving radioactive
materials. This procedure identifies four phases: Initial, confinement, cleanup, and cost
recovery. The DRC evaluated the Mill's Transportation Accident Response Plan and
confirmed that it meets all applicable requirements.
7 QUALITY ASSURANCE
No independent Quality Assurance Plan was submitted to the DRC as part of the 2007
License Renewal Application. In round one of the Health Physics interrogatories, the
DRC requested a list of all procedures that the Mill uses. After receiving the list of
procedures that the Mill uses, the DRC compiled a list of procedures that the Licensee
needed to submit for the License Renewal. As part of the round two Health Physics
Interrogatories, the DRC requested the Mill's Quality Assurance Program.
In response to the round two Health Physics Interrogatories, the Licensee stated: "The
Mill had generic Quality Assurance Program years ago. However, that program is no
longer in existence. It has been replaced by specific Quality Assurance provisions
inserted in individual SOPs where appropriate and for groundwater sampling by the
Mills Groundwater Monitoring Quality Assurance Plan. " DRC staff was able to confirm
that the Licensee has complied with all requirements UAC R313-24-4, which references
10CFR40.31(h), by using Section 7 of Draft NRC Regulatory Guide 3.5.
Page 37 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Application: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
8 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
An Evaluation of the Altematives was discussed in Environmental Report located in
Volume 4 of the 2007 License Renewal. The Altematives discussed included:
• Renewal of the License with its existing terms and conditions;
• Renewal the License wdth additional conditions;
• Deny renewal of the License;
• A brief description of why an altemative location was not evaluated; and
• A brief description of altemative Engineering Methods.
The DRC determined that all reasonable altematives were considered, as required in
UACR313-24-3(l)(c).
Page 38 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Application: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
ATTACHMENT 1
RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL LICENSE NO. UT 1900479
SUMMARY OF LICENSE CHANGES
October 10,2011
The changes that will be integrated into 2011 Renewal of the DUSA License are
summarized in the table below.
License Change Summarv
License
Condition
Change
Type^^ Description of Changes
3 Minor Reset amendment number to "5" for new license cycle.
4 Minor Reset expiration date to be 5 years from license execution.
6 Minor Added 1 l(e)2 By-product Material and Approved Altemate Feed Material
9.1 Major Added the legal descripfion of the White Mesa Uranium Mill property to
clarify the authorized location where licensed activities shall be permitted.
Also added to the License Condition that any constmction of mill process
water, wastewater storage, and/or tailings disposal embanlanentscells is
prohibited until after the Licensee demonstrates compliance with the
requirements of License Condition 9.11, and receives prior Executive
Secretary approval.
9.2
Minor
Multiple changes were made:
• Changed the street address. The DRC moved to a new address in 2010;
and
• Added language to clarify that all written notices and submittal shall
include a searchable electronic copy as required by Utah Administrative
Code(UAC)R313-12-lll.
Minor
Multiple changes were made:
• Changed the street address. The DRC moved to a new address in 2010;
and
• Added language to clarify that all written notices and submittal shall
include a searchable electronic copy as required by Utah Administrative
Code(UAC)R313-12-lll.
9.3 Minor Changed dates to reflect the Licensee's submittals for the 2007 License
renewal.
9.4 Minor Multiple changes were made:
• Added NRC to Paragraph B(3) to clarify the appropriate
Environmental Assessment that was referenced.
• Section D. Changed NRC to Execufive Secretary and changed the
date referenced from June 10, 1997 to February 27, 2007.
9.5
Major
Multiple changes were made related to Surety requirements, including:
• First Paragraph: new License Condifion 10.20 is referenced for future
costs of groundwater remediation; and
License conditions not listed in the table are those that remain unchanged from the last License
amendment.
The Executive Secretary deems minor changes as those that are insignificant in nature, or result in
more protection of human health, safety, and/or the environment. Major changes are those found
otherwise, and are only made after exposure of the License to public comment and resolution thereof.
Page 39 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Application: Draft Safety Evaluafion Report
October, 2011
License
Condition
Change
Type^^ Description of Changes
Minor
Major
• Fourth Paragraph: to reflect existing surety details.
• Fifth paragraph: added to provide clarification on when the annual
surety estimate need to be adjusted by the Licensee for: 1) the DOE /
EPA revised tailings cell cover system now required by License
Condition 9.11, and 2) future costs for remediation of groundwater
contamination now required in License Condition 10.20.
9.6
Minor
Major
Multiple changes were made:
• Changed wording of the License Condition to improve the readability
and understandability of the Condition;
• Added language that the Licensee shall provide up-to date copies, on an
annual basis, of White Mesa Mill's Standard Operational Procedure(s)
(SOP) to the Utah Division of Radiation Control (DRC) to:
o Improve Communication between the Licensee and the DRC; and
o Improve the Understanding for the DRC staff of the Licensee
activities at the White Mesa Mill.
9.7 Minor Minor typographical corrections.
9.10 Major Multiple changes were made:
• Added language to incorporate specific procedures on the release of ore
trucks and intermodal containers from the restricted area of the White
Mesa Mill;
• Added language to reference the Department of Transportation release
standards that shall be used to release ore tmcks and intermodal
containers from the restricted area of the White Mesa Mill; and
• Added language referencing NRC Regulatory Guide 8.16 "Termination
of Operating Licenses of Nuclear Reactors" dated June 1974. This
guidance has the exact requirements found in the NRC document
"Guidelines for Decontamination of Facilities and Equipment Prior to
Release for Unrestricted Use or Termination of Licenses for Byproduct,
Source, or Special Nuclear Material" dated May 1987 but it is easier to
find for referencing purposes.
9.11 Major Former requirements removed and replaced with multiple changes to
require the Licensee to submit for Executive Secretary approval, the
following:
• Opening paragraph the following shall be completed prior to any new
tailing cell construction;
• Section A: Approval of the ICTM report;
• Section B: requires the Licensee to submit a new Reclamation Plan and
Specification (Revision 5.0) by October 1, 2011 for Executive Secretary
approval;
• Section C: Submit an interim surety report for approval by the Executive
Secretary and after acceptance provide written evidence to demonstrate
the revised interim surety is fully funded within 60 calendar days;
• Section D: Reimburse the Execufive Secretary for third party review of
Reclamation Plan (5.0), ICTM report and Tailing Cell cover design
• Section E: requires the Licensee submit a final surety report after
Reclamation Plan 5.0, ICTM report and the new tailing cell cover design
is approved
Page 40 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Application: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
License
Condition
Change
Type^) Description of Changes
9.12 Minor This is a new license condition and was added to state that the License will
not be transfersred unless the Groundwater Discharge Permit is also
transferred.
10.1 Minor Made a Minor wording change to Paragraph E
10.3 Minor Multiple Changes were made:
• Minor format change
• Changed reference in Paragraph B from License Condition 12.3 to
12.2 to reflect the renumbering of the referenced licensed condition
• Changed the freeboard limits to Tailings 4B only
10.6
Minor
In the second round of Health Physics Interrogatories the DRC requested
that the Licensee identify approved altemate feeds that the White Mesa
Mill will no longer be accepting for processing. The altemate feed
associated with License Condition 10.10 was identified and deleted from
the License.
10.7 Minor Renumbered License Condition 10.6 to 10.7
10.8 Major In the second round of Health Physics Interrogatories the DRC requested
that the Licensee identify approved altemate feeds that the White Mesa
Mill will no longer be accepting for processing. The altemate feed
associated with License Condition 10.8 was identified and deleted from the
License.
10.10 Major In the second round of Health Physics Interrogatories the DRC requested
that the Licensee identify approved altemate feeds that the White Mesa
Mill will no longer be accepting for processing. The altemate feed
associated with License Condition 10.10 was identified and deleted from
the License.
10.12 Major In the second round of Health Physics Interrogatories the DRC requested
that the Licensee identify approved altemate feeds that the White Mesa
Mill will no longer be accepting for processing. The altemate feed
associated with License Condifion 10.12 was identified and deleted from
the License.
10.14 thru 18 Minor Deleted sections of these license conditions due to the requirements in
License Condition 10.1.
10.19 n/a None
10.20 Minor This is a new license condition and was added to:
1) Require the Licensee to remediate known groundwater contaminant
plumes at the facility in a manner and schedule approved by the Co-
Executive Secretary of the Utah Water Quality Board,
2) Define all contaminated wastewater or groundwater generated by the
remediation process as 11 .e.(2) material,
3) Clarify and define the specific groundwater contaminants that require
remediation as of July 1, 2011.
11.2 Minor Minor formatting changes and added the words "currenf and "(Permit)" to
the License Condition 11.2(c).
Page 41 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Application: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
License
Condition ^'^
Change
Type^> Description of Changes
11.3 Minor Multiple Changes were made:
• Added a new section A to require:
o All tailing cell leak detection system access pipes are open, free
draining, fully functional, and well maintained,
o An annual video log to verify these pipe conditions, and submittal
to the Executive Secretary for approval,
o A new performance standard, to require removal of any access pipe
blockages within 14 calendar days of discovery and subsequent
reporting within 30 calendar days
• Added language to section B clarifies how liquid in the leak detection
will be detected by approved methods, and removed within 24-hours.
Volume of removed fiuids shall be measured and documented.
• Added language to section E to clarify that both on-site records retention
and written reporting are required.
11.5 Minor Minor typographical correction.
11.7 Minor Changed references from License Condition 12.3 to 12.2 to reflect the
renumbering of the referenced licensed condition
11.8 Minor Changed references from License Condition 12.3 to 12.2 to reflect the
renumbering of the referenced licensed condition
12.1 Minor Renumbered license condition from 12.2 to 12.1. The original 12.1 was
deleted by the NRC in amendment 13.
12.2 Minor Renumbered license condition from 12.3 to 12.2 and fixed a font style and
size so that the entire paragraph was consistent throughout.
12.3 Major This is a new license condition and was added to:
1) Document land uses and changes to land surrounding the Licensee's
property; and
2) Identify any potential routes of exposure of contaminates and dose to
the general public from the Licensee's property.
3) To aid the Licensee's in demonstrating compliance with 40 CFR 190
Signature
Block
Minor Name of new Executive Secretary.
Page 42 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Application: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
ATTACHMENT 2
Chronology Summary:
Utah Division of Radiation Control (DRC) and Denison Mines (USA) Corp (THE
LICENSE)
Interaction Regarding
THE LICENSE Reclamafion Plan (Revisions 3.1, 3.2 and 4.0) and
Inflltration and Contaminant Transport Modeling (ICTM) Report
Since issuance of the March 8, 2005 DRC Ground Water Discharge Permit (Permit), No.
UGW370004; multiple documents have been exchanged between the Permittee and the
DRC and multiple meetings have taken place, regarding the ICTM Report. DUSA has
also proposed changes to the Reclamation Plan on three separate occasions to support: 1)
approval of Tailings Cell 4A re-lining (Revision 3.1), 2) approval of Tailings Cell 4B
construction (Revision 3.2), an (3) an update to the existing plan, with the existing cover
design (Revision 4.0). and M) overhaul of engineering design for a vegetated cover
(Revision 45,0). The former two revisions were approved by the DRC. Revision 4.0
remains unapproved, currently, in that it has been superseded by Revision 5.0. Revision
5.0 has just been submitted and incorporates the new vegetative cover designis directly
related to the ICTM Report requirements. These documents and meetings are
summarized in the following table:
Document/Meeting
Date
Author /
Event
Document Title / Summary / Description
March 8, 2005 DRC Issuance of first Permit for White Mesa facility. Part
I.H. 11 (now I.H.2) provided that:
1. DUSA submit an ICTM Report to demonstrate
the tailings cover system meet the performance
standards found in Part I.D.6 (now I.D.8) of the
Permit, including:
a. Minimization of inflltration into the radon barrier
and tailings
b. Prevention of accumulation of tailings leachate
(surface infiltration) on the bottom tailings liner
("bath-tub" effect), and
c. Protection of underlying groundwater quality
resources and public health at point of compliance
wells identified in the Permit, and
2. After Co-Executive Secretary approval of the
ICTM, the Reclamation Plan may be modified to
protect public health and the environment. .
8/26/2005 Meeting Meefing amongst DUSA (lUC), MWH Americas, and
Page 43 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Application: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
DRC to discuss concepts for the ICTM for Tailings
CeU 3.
11/03/2006 DRC Minor Permit Modification (No. 2), Change removes
requirement for Co-Executive Secretary approval of
the Work Plan and allows DUSA to go straight to
preparing the ICTM Report.
11/27/2006 DRC Minor Permit Modification (No. 3) Extends the
deadline for the ICTM Report from June 1, 2007 to
September 1, 2007
2/28/2007 DUSA Submittal of License renewal application.
Applicafion Section 8 (p. 74) addresses facility
reclamation, but fails to provide or reference a
reclamation plan. Section 8 also describes Permit
requirements for the ICTM Report establish
objectives and are inter-related to the reclamation
plan.
11/21/2007 DUSA ICTM Report (Prepared by MWH Americas)
7/25/2008 DUSA Submittal of Reclamation Plan, Revision 3,1 for new
Tailings Cell 4A (rock armor design, no vegetation).
Revised surety estimate also included.
8/4/2008 DRC Approval of Reclamation Plan, Revision 3.1 -
includes cover system for new Tailing Cell 4A.
2/2/2009 DRC "Request for Informafion" (RFI) Letter sent to DUSA
regarding DRC review of the 11/07 ICTM Report.
Letter calls out multiple problems/raised a number of
questions and identifies a number of deficiencies.
3/31/2009 Meeting Meeting amongst DUSA, MWH Americas, and DRC
(Salt Lake City) to discuss the ICTM report findings.
4/23/2009 DUSA Draft minutes for the 3/31/2009 meeting.
4/28/2009 DRC DRC comments sent to DUSA regarding the draft
3/31 /2009 meeting minutes.
4/30/2009 DUSA Draft response to the 2/2/209 DRC RFI.
8/5/2009 DRC DRC comments regarding the DUSA Draft response
to the 2/2/2009 RFI and requesting a meeting and
recommended agenda items.
9/2/2009 Meeting Meefing amongst DUSA, MWH Americas, and DRC
to discuss issues related to the 11/1/2007 ICTM
Report and agreed upon strategies and needed
improvements for a revised ICTM Report. DUSA
agrees that: 1) ICTM Report and Reclamation Plan
Rev. ^.0 are interrelated, 2) Approval ICTM Report
needs to should come before cover system re-design,
and 2) the review process for both documents is
iterative.
Page 44 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Applicafion: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
9/3/2009 DRC E-mail to DUSA which clarifies that all issues related
to radon emanation from the cover and potential
burrowing animal intmsion into the cover needs to be
included in the revised ICTM Report.
11/5/2009 Phone
Conference
Phone call between DRC and DUSA to discuss the
timeline for the DUSA final response to the 2/2/2009
DRC RFI and submission of the revised ICTM
Report. Per the call DUSA agreed to provide the RFI
response to DRC by 12/1/2009 and to provide the
revised ICTM to DRC by 3/31 /2010.
11/12/2009 DUSA Draft meeting minutes for the 9/2/2009 meeting.
11/16/2009 DRC DRC Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) outlining the
agreed upon dates for deliverables per the 11/5/2009
telephone call.
11/18/2009 DUSA Transmittal of final meeting minutes for the
3/31/2009 meeting.
11/25/2009 DUSA Submittal of Reclamation Plan. Revision 4,0. which
incorporated the existing NRC-approved cover
11/25/2009 DUSA
designincluding vegetated cover design (part of
response to 7/2/09 DRC Interrogatories (Round 2 -
Health Physics, and Round 1 - Engineering), ICTM
Report still not resolved.
12/1/2009 DUSA Cover letter and 36 page technical memorandum in
response to the 2/2/2009 DRC RFI transmitted to
DRC regarding ICTM Report.
12/2/2009 DRC Request to resubmit the 12/1/2009 technical
memorandum, several figures were illegible
12/7/2009 DUSA Revised copy of the 12/1/2009 technical
memorandum submitted to DRC.
3/31/2010 DUSA Revised ICTM Report submitted to DRC .
6/21/2010 DRC Email to Harold Roberts to summarize telephone call
on this day. During conversation, DUSA states that
DRC / URS review ofthe Reclamafion Plan, Rev. 4.0
should be based on the existing NRC-approved cover
design described in Rev. 4.0 and NOTnot include any
effort to review the ICTM Report.
6/29/2010 DUSA Submittal of Reclamation Plan, Revision 3.2 -
includes cover design for new Tailings Cell 4B.
Cover design includes riprap rock armor layer (no
vegetation).
10/5/2010 Meeting Meeting amongst DUSA, MWH, URS and DRC to
discuss Reclamation Plan Rev. 4.0. Per discussion
DUSA elected to pursue the vegetated cover design in
lieu of the NRC-approved cover design in Rev. 4.0as
10/5/2010 Meeting
part of tho Reclamation Plan 1.0 review^ being done
Page 45 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Application: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
by URS. ICTM Report not yet approved.
10/7/2010 DUSA DUSA submission of a proposed conceptual
embankment vegetated top slope cover design via e-
mail to DRC as the first step in the review of the
vegetative cover design, to be reviewed by URS in
10/7/2010 DUSA
lieu of the NRC-approved cover designte-be included
with the Reclamation Plan Rev. 4.0 review.
4/6/2010 DRC DRC transmittal of comments regarding the White
Mesa Reclamafion Plan Rev. 4.0 and the conceptual
vegetative cover design, via URS interrogatory. It
was noted that several comments/questions included
in the URS interrogatory were directly associated with
issues to be addressed by the ICTM Report.
3/21/2011 DUSA E-mail from DUSA agreeing that expansion of URS
review to include the ICTM Report would make
sense; however, DUSA expressed concems about
costs associated with the URS review.
4/7/2011 DRC E-mail to DUSA including a URS cost proposal to
complete review of the Reclamation Plan Rev. 4.0,
Round lA Interrogatory 1A (vegetated cover). Total
cost estimate was $ 19,779.
4/7/2011 DRC E-mail to DUSA including a URS proposal and cost
estimates to review the 3/31/2010 Revised ICTM
Report, in order to complete the Reclamation Plan
Rev. 4.0 and conceptual vegetative cover design
review. Total cost estimate was $64,868.
4/21/2011 DUSA E-mail from DUSA to DRC approving the URS cost
estimate of $19,779 to complete the Round lA
Interrogatory (for Reclamation Plan, Rev. 4.0).
4/2011 Phone
Conference
DRC/DUSA telephone conversation, DUSA
concludes that URS review costs for the Revised
ICTM Report are too high and suggested DRC share
the review cost (50/50 split).
6/16/2011 DRC Approval of Reclamation Plan, Revision 3.2 for
Tailings Cell 4B (includes rock armor design).
As provided in the December 14, 2004 DRC SOB the Co-Executive Secretary
determined that because the tailings cell cover system had not yet been constructed, it
was feasible and timely to consider improvements in cover design as a means to protect
long-term local groundwater quality. To this end, the ICTM Report requirement was
included in the Permit (Part I.H.I 1, now I.H,2), After repeated attempts to resolve
multiple technical issues, the ICTM Report has yet to demonstrate that either cover
system is adequate to protect local groundwater quality. Meanwhile, execution ofthe
License renewal has also been delayed since November, 2009; when DUSA requested
DRC review / approval of a vegetated cover system instead of the NRC-approved cover
systemr^ found in Reclamation Plan, Revision 4,0, In the meantime, review ofthe
Page 46 of 47
Denison Mines 2007 License Renewal Application: Draft Safety Evaluation Report
October, 2011
License renewal application has reached a point where the Executive Secretary ofthe
Radiation Control Board (hereafter Executive Secretary) is prepared to execute certain
key improvements to radiation safety requirements at DUSA.
In order to expedite renewal of the License, the Division has established new
requirements in the draft License renewal to: 1) prohibit constmction of new tailings
disposal cells until after resolution of the ICTM Report, and any subsequent changes to
the Reclamation Plan. In addition, two sets of changes are required to the DUSA
financial surety, one interim, to be submitted shortly, and a second change to be
implemented after resolution of the ICTM Report and changes to the Reclamation Plan.
These changes to the License are pmdent in order to:
1) Facilitate renewal of the License and timely implementation of needed
improvements to radiation safety matters,
2) Focus DUSA attention on resolution of the ICTM Report requirement and
development of a technically evaluated Reclamation Plan Cover Design, by prohibiting
constmction of new tailings cells, beyond Cell 4B, until after such resolution, and
3) Reaffirm the Co-Executive Secretary's original objectives in the March 8, 2005
Permit Compliance Schedule Requirement, ICTM Work Plan and Report (former Part
l.H.l 1), to evaluate the ability of the facility's approved cover design to provide long-
term protection of local groundwater quality resources and public health.
References
1. Utah Division of Radiation Control, Radioactive Materials License No
UT1900479, Denison Mines (USA) Corp., White Mesa Uranium Mill
(Amendment 4)
2. Utah Division of Water Quality, Febmary 14, 2011, Ground Water Discharge
Permit, DUSA, Permit No. UGW370004.
Page 47 of 47