DRC-2011-007342 - 0901a0688026bd24

State of Utah
GARY R. HERBERT
Governor
GREG BELL
Lieutenant Governor
Department of
Environmental Quality
Amanda Smith
Executive Director
DIVISION GF RADIATION CONTROL
RustyLundberg
Director
U t er-
DRC-201 1-00734
August29,2011
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECKTPT REOUESTED
Jo Ann Tischler, Director, Gompliance and Permitting
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
1050 17"" Street
Suite 950
Denver, CO 80265
Subiect- June 13, 2011 Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (DUSA) Response to DRC Notice of ^
Violation UGWl 1-02: DRC Findings and Proposed Settlement Agreement and
Moneta;ry Penalty
Dear Ms. Tischler:
The Utah Division of Radiation Control (DRC) has reviewed DUSA's June 13, 2011 response ^^^^^
May 9 2GU Notice of Violation and Compliance Order, Docket No. UGWll-02 (Order). Based on
the review DRC has determined the following:
Table 1 below summarizes the violations cited in the Order, the violations requested to be rescinded
by DUSA per the Response, and the DRC findings.
Table 1 - Suinmary of Violations NOV and Order Docket UGWll
Violation Summary I DUSA June 13, 2011 Response
-02, DUSA Responses and DRC Findings
DRC Findings
Violation 1 - NOV listed 4
monitoring wells for failure
to achieve stable turbidity
readings prior to
groundwater sampling
during the 2"^ Quarter 2010.
DUSA disagrees with 1 of the 4
monitoring well violations and
requests that it be rescinded. DUSA
contests the violation for well MW-
20 based on the well having been
pumped dry prior to extraction of 2
well volumes.
DRC concurs that well MW-20 was pumped
dry and per the approved DUSA QAP, was
not required to conform to the turbidity
stabilization criteria, thus the violation for
monitoring well MW-20 is retracted.
1 monitoring well violation retracted
3 monitoring well violations stand
195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, UT
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144850 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850
Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • T.D.D. [phone]|
www.deq.utah.^ov
Printed on 100% recycled paper
Page 2
Violation 2 - NOV lists 1
monitoring well violation
for failure to achieve stable
turbidity readings prior to
groundwater sampling
during to the June, 2010
accelerated monitoring
event
DUSA disagrees with the violation
and requests that it be rescinded.
DUSA contests the violation based
on monitoring well MW-26 being a
continuously pumping well
(chloroform pumping well) and not
subject to the turbidity stabilization
criteria.
DRC notes that although well MW-26 was
not required to achieve stabilization for
turbidity prior to sampling, the field
parameters which were measured and
recorded on the field sheets showed that the
turbidity was outside of the stabilization
criteria. DRC agrees that since the well is
continuously pumping additional purging
was not necessary. DRC will retract
Violation 2 since the turbidity stabilization
criteria were not required at the pumping
well.
Order Violation 2 Retracted
Violation 3 - NOV lists 3
monitoring well violations
for failure to achieve stable
turbidity readings prior to
groundwater sampling
during the July, 2010
accelerated monitoring
event
DUSA disagrees with 1 of the 3
monitoring well violations and
requests that it be rescinded. DUSA
contests the violation for monitoring
well MW-26 since it is a
continuously pumping well
(chloroform pumping well) and hot
subject to the turbidity stabilization
criteria.
Based on the same criteria as the DRC
findings for Violation 2 DRC will retract the
monitoring well violation for well MW-26
since the turbidity stabilization criteria was
not required at the pumping well.
1 monitoring well violation retracted
2 monitoring well violations stand
Violation 4 - NOV cites 8
monitoring well violations
for exceeding groundwater
GWCL's (8 individual
contaminants) listed in\
Table 2 of the Groundwater
Permit for two consecutive
sampling events at specific
monitoring wells
DUSA disagrees with 3 of the 8
monitoring well violations and
requests that they be rescinded.
DUSA contests the violations at
wells MW-18 and MW-27 since they
"were non-required samples
collected in Ql 2010." DUSA also
contests the monitoring well
violation at well MW-30 since an
additional sample for Selenium was
reported between the two
exceedences which had a
concentration below the GWCL.
DRC disagrees with the DUSA explanation
for monitoring wells MW-18 and MW-27/
Accelerated monitoring was instituted by
DUSA and the sample results reported show
two consecutive exceedences of the
respective GWPL's. These 2 violations
stand.
DRC concurs that for well MW-30 an
additional Selenium sample was reported
below the GWPL during July, 2011 and 2
consecutive exceedences did not occur.
DRC will retract this monitoring well
violation.
1 monitoring well violation retraGted
7 monitoring well violations stand
Violation 5-1 violation for
failure to provide QA
evaluation and data
validation in the quarterly
report.
DUSA does not contest the violation 1 violation stands
17 monitoring well
violations cited
13 monitoring well violations stand
DRC findings regarding the DUSA responses for each of the five violations listed in the Order is
below: .
Page 3
1. Part LE. 1 (a) of the Permit and Section 6.2.7{d)(v) of the DUSA QAP for failing to achieve
stable turbidity conditions before collecting groundwater samples in 4 wells during the 2nd
Quarter, 2010 monitoring event.
DRC FINDINGS - VIOLATION 1
All the items in Violation No. 1 still stand with one exemption. The DRC agrees that monitoring
well MW-20 was purged dry in the 2^^^ Quarter, 2011 sampling event before DUSA collected the
sample; therefore, the DRC agrees that the MW-20 problem can be retracted from Violation No.l.
After considering the Executive Secretary's possible enforcement options, the DRC believes it is
necessary to pursue a penalty for this violation because this is a repeat violation, as follows:
• After DRC review of the DUSA 1'^ Quarter, 2009 Ground Water Monitoring Report, DUSA
was cited for several groundwater sampling / monitoring problems in a November 17, 2009
NOV (Docket No. UGW09-06). In Violation No. 2 of this NOV, DUS A was cited: ". . . for
failing to achieve stable turbidity conditions before collecting groundwater samples in 17
wells during the February and March, 2009 monitoring events.In response to the NOV,
DUSA stated that compliance had been regained, in that ''Samples were collected in
accordance with Sections 6,2.7(d)(v) and 6.2.7(d)(vi) ofthe QAP during the 4^^^ Quarter,
2009 event,"
• During review of the 4^^ Quarter, 2009 Ground Water Monitoring Report, it was observed
that DUS A had the failed to achieve stable parameters in 12 wells during the October,
November, and December, 2009 monitoring events; therefore, the Executive Secretary fined
DUSA a $2,997 Civil Penalty for this problem identified in the 4^^ Quarter, 2009 Report.
DUSA paid the Civil Penalty on August 23, 2010.
Per the Response, the root cause of the violations is reported to be the result of equipment
malfunction as well as a misunderstanding amongst the field sampling staff. Corrective actions list
that the mill sampling staff have been reminded that the field readings are required to stabilize prior
to sample collection (even if more than 2 casing volumes are needed). ]
2. Part LE.l(a) ofthe Permit and Section 6.2.7(d)(v) of the DUSA QAP for failing to achieve
stable turbidity conditions before collecting groundwater samples in 1 well during the June,
2010 accelerated monitoring event.
DRC FINDINGS - VIOLATION 2
The DRC agrees with DUSA's argument that stabilization requirements do not apply to pumping
wells; therefore, the DRC agrees that Violation No. 2 can be retracted. Although, DUSA sampling
staff collected 4 sets of field parameters for monitoring well MW-26, which showed the groundwater
had not achieved stable parameters before sample collection, DUSA is only required to collect one
set of field parameters before samples collection in pumping wells, per Section 5 of Appendix A of
the DUSA QAP.
Page 4
3. Part I.E.l(a) ofthe Permit and Section 6.2.7(d)(v) of the DUSA QAP for failing to achieve
stable turbidity conditions before collecting groundwater samples in 3 wells during the July,
2010 accelerated monitoring event.
DRC FINDINGS - VIOLATION 3
All the items in Violation No. 3 still stand with one exemption. The DRC agrees with DUSA's
argument that stabilization requirements do not apply to pumping wells; therefore, the DRC agrees
that MW-26 can be retracted from Violation No.3. Although, DUSA sampling staff collected 4 sets
of field parameters for monitoring well MW-26, which showed the groundwater had not achieved
stable parameters before sample collection, DUSA is only required to collect one set of field
parameters before samples collection in pumping wells, per Section 5 of Appendix A of the DUSA
QAP. ^
After considering the Executive Secretary's possible enforcement options regarding the other items
in Violation No.3, the DRC believes it is necessary to pursue a penalty for this violation because this
is a repeat violation, which is described in detail for Violation No. 1, above.
4. Utah Water Quality Act (UC 19-5-107) and Parts I.C.IO of the Permit for failing to protect
the waters of the state in that 6 contaminants have exceeded their respective GWCL in Table 2
of the Permit for two consecutive sampling events.
DRC FINDINGS- VIOLATION 4
All the items in Violation No. 4 still stand with one exemption. The DRC agrees with DUSA that
there was a selenium sample collected in the July 2010 accelerated monitoring event with a resvilt of
33 |Lig/L, which is less than the Groundwater Compliance Limit (GWCL) of 35 |Lig/L for selenium in
MW-30; therefore, DUSA is in POOC status for seleniuni in MW-30, not OOC status. Apparently,
DRC staff inadvertently missed the result during review ofthe 3^^ Quarter, 2010 Report.
DUSA also claims that ''the violations cited for the following constituents and wells are in error and
should be rescinded:
• successive exceedances in thallium in MW'18 in January and March 2010; and
• successive exceedances in TDS in MW'27 in Ql and Q2, 2010. "
The DRC disagrees with DUSA that the above violations are in error and should be rescinded. On
April 5, 2010, the DRC in a conference call regarding the a 4^^ Quarter, 2009 Groundwater Report
told DUSA that any samples collected after the January 20, 2010 Permit Modification would have to
be submitted with the other samples collected during the period and any result would be enforceable
under the Permit. The DRC agreed with DUSA, that any samples collected in the 1 Quarter of
2010 before January 20 2010, would not be compared to the new Groundwater Gompliance Liniits
(GWCLs).
However, since this is the first time that DUSA has been cited for this problem, the DRC
recommends that no civil penalty be issued at this time.
Page 5
Corrective actions for these violations are tied to violation 5 below. DUSA submitted a plan and
schedule for assessment of the consecutive exceedences on June 13, 2011, that plan is currently
under DRC review.
5. Part I.G.4(c) of the Permit for failing to provide a plan and schedule for assessment of the
sources, extent and potential dispersion of the contamination, and an evaluation of potential
remedial action to restore and maintain groundwater quality to insure that Permit limits will
not be exceeded at the compliance monitoring point and that DMT or BAT will be
reestablished.
DRC FINDINGS - VIOLATION 5
Since this is the first time DUSA has been cited for this type of violation, a civil monetary penalty
will not be assessed.
The DRC received the DUSA document titled ''White Mesa Mill Plan and Time Schedule under for
Violations of Part LG.2 for Constituents in the First, Second, Third and Fourth Quarters of 2010 and
First Quarter of 2011," via e-mail on June 13, 2011 and a hard copy on June 14, 2011. The
document and transmittal letter are dated June 13, 2011.
The DUSA plan and schedule is currently under DRC review.
Based on the above findings, DRC has calculated a proposed civil penalty for violation 1 and 3 (5
total monitoring wells), see attached. Also a copy of a settlement agreement (SA) contract, based on
the proposed civil penalty is also attached. If you wish to resolve the May 9, 2011 Order based on
the enclosed calculations, please review the SA and sign both originals (do not date them), and then
return them both to this office within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of this letter. Thereafter, the
Co-Ex ecutive Secretary will sign and date the SA and retum one original to you. Payment of the
penalty will then be due within 30 calendar days of the date the final SA document is signed by the
Co-Executive Secretary.
If you would like to discuss the proposed monetary penalty or the content of the SA further, please
contact Tom Rushing at [phone] to arrange a settlement meeting or conference call.
Thank you for your continued cooperation.
UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD
Rusty Lundberg
Co-Executi ve Secretary
Enclosures: 1. Proposed Penalty Calculation, 2. Settlement Agreement Contract UGWl 1-02SA (2 copies)
RL:TR:tr
F:\DUSA\UGW 11 -02\Proposed SA Letter, Contract & PenahyNUGW11 -02 DRC Violations Findings Resp Ltr.doc
State of I3tab
Governor
GREG BEtL ueutenant Governor
pepartmentof
Environmental Quab^y
Amanda smith
Exenaiv^ Director
Director
File S^'^^MA^'^ TO: cpction Manager t// /
Phil Goble, compliance S ct^on
THROUGH- Pl^^l^ ^ ^1^1^^
Torn Rushing, P G. .
FROM".
August 23,2011
DATE-
Tom ^us»—c'
"ROM-. fnenisonMines
August23,20ll tiGWll-02,R^^^f^SonofRadi^i°"
;«B3ECi-- us A) Corp.<D^^.^;';d Proposed Ovnr...--. ,„j„etter .
-nilSAddnotreserv
• the Response, I>^^^ ;
.u., .Molfltions cueu'
...
MaiVmg Ad^i^^'^/^so • Fax (8Q»^ 533-40^
Page 2
Table 1 - Summary of Violations NOV and Order Docket UGWl 1-02, DUSA Responses and PRC Findings
I Violation Summary I DUSA June 13, 2011 Response DRC Findings
Violation 1 - NOV listed 4
monitoring wells for failure
to achieve stable turbidity
readings prior to
groundwater sampling
during the 2"^ Quarter 2010
DUSA disagrees with 1 of the 4
monitoring well violations and
requests that it be rescinded. DUSA
contests the violation for well MW-
20 based on the well having been
pumped dry prior to extraction of 2
well volumes.
DRC concurs that well MW-20 was pumped
dry and per the approved facility QAP, was
not required to conform to the turbidity
stabilization criteria, thus the violation for
monitoring well MW-20 is retracted.
1 monitoring well violation retracted
3 monitoring well violations stand
Violation 2 - NOV lists 1
monitoring well violation
for failure to achieve stable
turbidity readings prior to
groundwater sampling
during to the June, 2010
accelerated monitoring
event
DUSA disagrees with the violation
and requests that it be rescinded.
DUSA contests the violation based
on monitoring well MW-26 being a
continuously pumping well
(chloroform pumping well) and not
subject to the turbidity stabilization
criteria.
DRC notes that although well MW-26 was
not required to achieve stabilization for
turbidity prior to sampling, the field
parameters which were measured and
recorded on the field sheets showed that the
turbidity was outside of the stabilization
criteria. DRC agrees that since the well is
continuously pumping additional purging is
not necessary. DRC will retract Violation
No. 2 since the turbidity stabilization criteria
were not required at the pumping well.
Order Violation 2 Retracted
Violation 3 - NOV lists 3
monitoring well violations
for failure to achieve stable
turbidity readings prior to
groundwater sampling
during the July, 2010
accelerated monitoring
event
DUSA disagrees with 1 of the 3
monitoring well violations and
requests that it be rescinded. DUSA
contests the violation for monitoring
well MW-26 since it is a
continuously pumping well
(chloroform pumping well) and not
subject to the turbidity stabilization
criteria.
Based on the same criteria as the DRC
findings for Violation 2 DRC will retract the
monitoring well violation for well MW-26
since the turbidity stabilization criteria was
not required at the pumping well.
1 monitoring well violation retracted
2 monitoring well violations stand
Violation 4 - NOV cites 8
monitoring well violations
for exceeding groundwater
GWCL's (8 individual
contaminants) listed in
Table 2 of the Groundwater
Permit for two consecutive
sampling events at specific
monitoring wells
DUSA disagrees with 3 of the 8
monitoring well violations and
requests that they be rescinded.
DUSA contests the violations at
wells MW-18 and MW-27 since they
were non-required samples
collected in Ql 2010." DUSA also
contests the monitoring well
violation at well MW-30 since an
additional sample for Selenium was
reported between the two
exceedences which had a
concentration below the GWCL.
DRC disagrees with the DUSA explanation
for monitoring wells MW-18 and MW-27.
Accelerated monitoring was instituted by
DUSA and the sample results reported show
two consecutive exceedences of the
respective GWPL's. These 2 violations
stand.
DRC concurs that for well MW-30 an
additional Selenium sample was reported
below the GWPL during July, 2011 and 2
consecutive exceedences did not occur.
DRC will retract this monitoring well
violation.
1 monitoring well violation retracted
7 monitoring well violations stand
Page 3
Violation 5 - 1 violation for
failure to provide QA
evaluation and data
validation in the quarterly
report.
DUSA does not contest the violation 1 violation stands
17 monitoring well
violations cited
13 monitoring well violations stand
Each DUSA response to the 5 Order violations is listed below, followed by DRC findings.
VIOLATIONS
1. Part I.E. 1 (a) of the Permit and Section 6.2.7(d)(v) of the DUSA QAP for failing to achieve
stable turbidity conditions before collecting groundwater samples in 4 wells during the 2nd
Quarter, 2010 monitoring event.
a) Root Cause of the Noncompliance
The root cause of the violation with respect to MW-7 7, MW-25 and MW-29 is as follows. At the time
of sampling, the turbidity sensor on the field Hydrolab multi-meter was not functioning properly.
Simultaneously the Mill sampling personnel were under the mistaken understanding that a variance
had been issued by DRC such that purging was complete after the removal of two casing volumes,
regardless of stability of parameters. As a result, the field personnel purged to two casing volumes
when they were unable to collect dependable turbidity readings.
DUSA realizes that Notices of Violation have been issued in the past for non-compliance with Section
6.2.7(d)(v) of the QAP, and that DUSA has instructed its field personriel in the past on the proper
interpretation of that Section of the QAP. However, DUSA had already initiated discussions with the
Executive Secretary including a phone call on April 5, 2010 in which it argued that it was not
practicable to obtain stable turbidity conditions in the Mill's monitoring wells, and proposed that the
QAP be modified to permit low fiow sampling instead. These discussions resulted in a formal letter
request of April 2, 2010, and proposed revision to the QAP dated June 4, 2010. This request led to
subsequent correspondence between DRC staff and DUSA and the implementation of a well re-
development program at the Mill, which is currently under way. Mill field sampling personnel were
under the understanding that, in light of these submissions by DUSA and the steps that were being
taken to address the problems that were being encountered with turbidity at the Mill, that DRC had
waived strict compliance with the stable turbidity requirements of the QAP pending resolution of the ^
issues.
b) Steps That Have Been Taken to Correct the Violation
Mill sampling personnel have been re-instructed that Section 6.2.7(d)(v)ofthe QAP requires that for
wells that are not purged to dryness, purging is completed after two casing volumes have been
removed AND field parameters have stabilized to within lOpercent over at least two consecutive
measurements. Further, Mill sampling personnel have been reminded that existing provisions of the
QAP must be followed unless and until a formal written variante or modification has been approved
by the Executive Secretary.
Page 4
c) Date When Compliance Was or Will be Regained
Compliance was regained in the first quarter of 2011 when all wells that were not purged to dryness
were purged to two casing volumes and achieved stable parameters. Compliance was technically
achieved in the fourth quarter of 2010 when all wells that were not purged to dryness were purged to
two casing volumes and achieved stable parameters {except one well for which the turbidity values
were so low that it is mathematically impossible to generate a percent difference less than 10
percent).
DRC FINDINGS - VIOLATION 1
All the items in Violation No. 1 still stand with one exemption. The DRC agrees that monitoring well
MW-20 was purged dry in the 2""^ Quarter, 2011 sampling event before DUSA collected the sample;
therefore, the DRC Staff agrees that the MW-20 problem can be retracted from Violation No.l. After
considering the Executive Secretary's possible enforcement options, DRC staff believes it is
necessary to pursue a penalty for this violation because this is a repeat violation, as follows:
• After DRC review of the DUSA 1'^ Quarter, 2009 Ground Water Monitoring Report, DUSA
was cited for several groundwater sampling / monitoring problems in a November 17, 2009
NOV (Docket No. UGW09-06). In Violation No. 2 of this NOV, DUSA was cited: ''...for
failing to achieve stable turbidity conditions before collecting groundwater samples in 17
wells during the February and March, 2009 monitoring events." In response to the NOV,
DUSA stated that compliance had been regained, in that ''Samples were collected in
accordance with Sections 6.2.7(d)(v) and 6.2.7(d)(vi) of the QAP during the 4^^' Quarter, 2009
event."
• During review of the 4^^ Quarter, 2009 Ground Water Monitoring Report, it was observed that
DUSA had the failed to achieve stable parameters in 12 wells during the October, November,
and December, 2009 monitoring events; therefore, the Executive Secretary fined DUSA a
$2,997 Civil Penalty for this problem identified in the 4'^ Quarter, 2009 Report. DUSA paid
the Civil Penalty on August 23, 2010.
2. Part I.E.l(a) ofthe Permit and Section 6.2.7(d)(v) of the DUSA QAP for failing to achieve
stable turbidity conditions before collecting groundwater samples in 1 well during the June,
2010 accelerated monitoring event.
DRC FINDINGS - VIOLATION 2
The DRC agrees with DUSA's argument that stabilization requirements do not apply to pumping
wells; therefore, DRC Staff agrees that Violation No. 2 can be retracted. Although, DUSA sampling ^
staff collected 4 sets of field parameters for monitoring well MW-26, which showed the groundwater
had not achieved stable parameters before sample collection, DUSA is only required to collect one set
of field parameters before samples collection in pumping wells, per Section 5 of Appendix A ofthe
DUSA QAP.
3. Part I.E.l(a) of the Permit and Section 6.2.7(d)(v) of the DUSA QAP for failing to achieve
stable turbidity conditions before collecting groundwater samples in 3 wells during the July,
2010 accelerated monitonng event.
a) Root Cause of the Noncompliance
Page5 V
With respect to MW-14 and MW-31, the root cause ofthe violation is the same as the rdot cause of
the violations relating to MW-17, MW-25 and MW-29 described in item 1 above.
b) Steps That Have Been Taken to Correct the Violation
Mill sampling personnel have been re-instructed that the Section 6:2.7(d)(v) ofthe QAP requires that
for wells that are not purged to dryness, purging is completed after two casing volumes have been
removed AND field parameters have stabilized to within 10 percent over at least two consecutive
measurements.
c) Date When Compliance Was or Will be Regained
Compliance was regained in the fiirst quarter of 2011 when all wells that were not purged to dryness
were purged to two casing volumes and achieved stable parameters. Compliance was technically
achieved in the fourth quarter of 2010 when all wells that were not purged to dryness were purged to
two casing volumes and achieved stable parameters (except one well for which the turbidity values
were so low that it is mathematically impossible to generate a percent difference less than 10
percent).
DRC FINDINGS - VIOLATION 3
All the items in Violation No. 3 still stand with one exemption. The DRC agrees with DUSA's
argument that stabilization requirements do not apply to pumping wells; therefore, the DRC Staff
agrees that MW-26 can be retracted from Violation No.3. Although, DUSA sampling staff collected
4 sets of field parameters for monitoring well MW-26, which showed the groundwater had not
achieved stable parameters before sample collection, DUSA is only required to collect one set of field
parameters before samples collection in pumping wells, per Section 5 of Appendix A of the DUS A
QAP.
After considering theExecutive Secretary's possible enforcement options regarding the other items in
Violation No.3, DRC staff believes it is necessary to pursue a penalty for this violation because this is
a repeat violation, which is described in detail for Violation No. 1, above.
4. Utah Water Quality Act (UC 19.5'-107) and Parts LC.IO of the Permit for failing to protect
the waters of the State in that 6 contaminants have exceeded their respective GWCL in Table 2
of the Permit for tw o consecutive sampling events.
a) Root Cause of the Noncompliance
DUSA submits that the violations cited for the following constituents and wells are in error and
should be rescinded: ,
• successive exceedances in thallium in MW-18 in January and March 2010; and
• successive exceedances in TDS in MW-27 in :Q1 and Q2, 2010.
In each of these cases one or both of the samples used in determining two sequential exceedances was
a non-required sample collected in error in Ql 2010. The samples in question were taken as
accelerated samples based on the old Groundwater Compliance Limits ("GWCLs") andridtihe
current GWCLs that were set in January 2010. Hence, they were not required to be decelerated un
the new GWCLs and were therefore taken vi error. Agreement on handling of results from non-
Page 6
required accelerated samples collected in Ql 2010 has already been established in correspondence
between DRC and DUSA dated February 16 and February 17, 2011. Per the February 16, 2011
email from David Frydenlund, approved by Philip Goble on February 17, 2011:
"Accelerated monitoring for subsequent quarters will depend on the application of Part I.G.I ofthe
permit to results from groundwater samples required to be taken in the first quarter of 2010 and from
any subsequent sample results. The notice requirements of Part I.G. la) of the Permit will apply to
any exceedances observed in groundwater samples required to be taken in the first quarter of 2010
and from any subsequent sample results [emphasis added].
The analytical results for any accelerated monitoring that may have taken place in
January 2010 willbe kept on file at the Mill but will not be included in the 1st quarter 2010
Groundwater Monitoring Report for the Mill."
Mr. Goble concurred with the determination in this portion of the February 16, 2011 email from
David Frydenlund, in his response on February 17, 2011, stating that
"We agree with everything in your e-mail except the last paragraph "
and adding that:
"If DUSA collected accelerated groundwater samples in January'before the revised Permit was
modified {January 20, 2010) you need to include these results with the 1st Quarter, 2010 GW Report
{due March 1, 2010), in order to comply with Part II.F ofthe Permit."
DUSA believes it was understood at the time that no samples inadvertently taken in Ql 2010 would be
used to determine compliance with Part I.G.I ofthe Permit, regardless of whether or not they were
taken before or after January 20, 2010. D USA advised DRC in February 2010 that the fact that the
new GWCLs created a "clean slate" and that no constituents were in accelerated status as of January
20, 2010 was not fully implemented by Mill field sampling personnel until sometime after that date,
and that, as a result, some ?2on-required samples were taken after January 20, 2010. DUSA also
submits that Violation 4, with respect to selenium in MW-30 is in error and should be rescinded.
There were not two successive exceedances ofthe GWCL for selenium in MW-30 in Ql, Q2 or Q3
2010. The data cited in Table 2 for MW-30 indicates selenium exceedances in Q2 2010 and August
2010. However, there was an intervening monitoring period, July 2010, in which selenium in MW-
30 was 33.5 ug/L compared to a GWCL of 35 ug/L, that is, it was not an exceedance.
With respect to the remaining constituents and wells, namely:
Cadmium MW24
Manganese MWU
Selenium MWl2
Thallium MW18, MW24
Uranium MW26
TDSMW27 ^
DUSA will submit a Work Plan and Schedule {the "Plan "j by June 13, 2011, for Executive Secretary
approval, to evaluate the root cause and response action {if necessary) for the consecutive
exceedances of GWCLs for those constituents in those wells. The Plan will also address any
additional consecutive exceedances identified in Q4 2010 and Ql 2011.
Pian will set n
^^'^d time srh^^ /
'heprocesZlT. ''"^^^'^d under Pan ]^r^^^ mil no^t^^^«'^re W
'^'•-<'W.rf„„ . """™«">t Violation
'^-€5?-^JS:>tr ^^^^^^^^^ .
^^^^ also chirr, u ^ ^"""g review Of the>^;^^'"°f OOC status^^^ W^ jW^r ™^f^at''/^^^-, . "^-^ Quarter,20in» ^ ^P^^entiy,
«°^ever, since this is th. r ^^"^PJiance Liniits
'•ecommends that nn f ^'''^ that Dm^ .
^^ctive actions for the at this te' ''^"^'^«C Staff schedule fx.. ^°^f"esevio/;,hV.„„. .
y Ine Order.
Pages
5. Part I.G.4(c) of the Permit for failing to provide a plan and schedule for assessment of the
sources, extent and potential dispersion of the contamination, and an evaluation of potential
remedial action to restore and maintain groundwater quality to insure that Permit limits will
not be exceeded at the compliance monitoring point and that DMT or BAT will be
reestablished.
a) Root Cause of the Noncompliance
DUSA mistakenly believed that it would have a chance to consult with the Executive Secretary in any
circumstance when the concentration of a constituent in two consecutive samples from a compliance
monitoring well exceeds a GWCL, before implementation of the requirements of Part I.G.4 ofthe
Permit. DUSA assumed that identification of the successive exceedances yvould result in an
opportunity for joint evaluation with the Executive Secretary for the following reasons:
{i) five ofthe constituents identified as being OOC {manganese in MW-11, selenium in MW-
3, and selenium in MW-12, thallium in MW-18, uranium in Mw-26) have already been
identified in DUSA's groundwater background reports of June and October 2007 {the
"Background Reports") as constituents with rising trends in intra-well background
concentrations, for which eventual exceedance of the GWCLs is not unexpected. It was
further acknowledged that the rising trends were due to natural background iiifluences
and were not caused by Mill operations. The decision flow diagram in the Background
Groundwater Reports contemplated that special consideration would be given to such
constituents when setting GWCLs in the Permit. However, a solution to this problem was
not identified at the time the GWCLs were set in the Permit in January 2010, and the
GWCL^" were therefore set as if the rising trends did not exist. DUSA expected that,
because the GWCLs set in the Permit did not recognize these rising trends it would have
a chance to discuss the circumstances with the Executive Secretary at the time any of
these constituents exceeded their GWCLs, especially in light of paragraphs {iii) and(iv)
below;
{ii) one of the constituents {uranium in MW-26) is in a pumping well, which was identified in
the September, 2009 Statement of Basis as follows: "It should be noted that, because
MW-26 is a pumping well for chloroform removal, concentrations of all constituents in that
well are subject to potential variation overtime as a result ofthe pumping activity. This
will be taken into consideration by the Executive Secretary on determining compliance for
this well." Again, the GWCLs that were set did not properly take into account the nature
ofthis well. DUSA expected that it would have a chance to discuss the circumstances
with the Executive Secretary at the time of an exceedance ofany constituent in this well,
especially in light of paragraphs {iii) and {iv) below;
{iii) the questions of rising trends and the influences of pumping were analyzed in detail in the
Background Reports. It is not clear what new or additional analysis could be performed
in a plan and schedule tobe submitted under Part LG 4, in light ofthis previous analysis.
DUSA therefore assumed that some dialogue would take place before it would be
required to submit a new plan and schedule under Part I.G.4 to redo an analysis that had
just recently been extensively analyzed in the Background Reports; and
{iv) from the initial date of issuance ofthe Permit up until the date ofthe Notice, there had
been numerous multiple consecutive exceedances of GWCLs, for which the Executive
Secretary did not enforce the requirements of Part I.G.4 ofthe Permit. Those GWCLs
were set in 2005 as a fraction ofthe Ground Water Quality Standards for drinking water
Page 9
or the equivalent and were not tied to background. We understood this to mean that by
setting GWCLs the Executive Secretary had the ability to enforce against the Permh
holder, but that theExecutive Secretary would exercise discretion in enforcing in
circumstances where the GWCLs may not appropriately reflect background. It was this
understanding that led DUSA to believe that any consecutive exceedances of GWCLs
after January 20, 20J0, especially in the circumstances described above where the
GWCL5' do not take into account rising trends in background or the influences of
pumping, DUSA would have a chance to consult with theExecutive Secretary on the
proper course to follow {which could involve changing the GWCLs) prior to initiation ofthe
provisions of Part I.G.4 of the Pennit.
b) Steps That Have Been Taken to Correct the Violation
The Plan will be submitted to the Executive Secretary on or before June 13, 2011. See item 4{b)
above.
c) Date When Compliance Was or Will be Regained
Compliance will be regained on June 13, 2011 upon subniission of th^
d) Steps Taken to Prevent Reoccurrence of the Noncompliance
DUSAnow understands that the provisions of Part I.G.4 apply to all si^
concentration of a constituent in two consecutive samples from a compliance monitoring point
exceeds a GWCL in Table 2 of the Permit, and will act accordingly.
DRC FINDINGS - VIOLATION 5
Since this is the first time DUSA has been cited for this violation, a civil monetary penalty will not be
assessed.
DRC received the DUSA document titled "White Mesa Mill Plan and Time Schedule under for
Violations of Part I.G.2 for Constituents in the First, Second, Third and Fourth Quarters of 2010 and
First Quarter of 2011," via e-mail on June 13, 2011 and a hard copy on June 14, 2011. The doeunient
and transmittal letter are dated June 13, 2011. ]
The DUSA plan and schedule is currently under DRC review.
2. Civil Penalty Calculation
WATER OUALITY PENALTY CRITERIA
According to R317-1-8 (Penalty Criteria for Civil Settlement Negotiations), the penalty calculation
methodology consists of the following formula:
CIVIL PENALTY = PENALTY + ADJUSTMENTS - ECONOMIC AND LEGAL
CONSIDERATIONS
I. Category Selection (R317-1-8.3)
The tablfc below describes the Water Quality penalty categories.
Page 10
Water Quality Penalty Categories (UAC R317-1-8.3)
Category A - $7,000 to $10,000 per day. Violations with high impact on pubhc health and the
environment to include:
Category A.I - Discharges which result in documented public health efifects and/or significant
environmental damage.
Category A.2 - Any type of violation not mentioned above severe enough to warrant a penalty
assessment under category A. • .. . • -
Category B - $2,000 to $7,000 per day. Major violations of the Utah Water Pollution Control Act,
associated regulations, permits or orders to include:
Category B.l - Discharges which likely caused or would potentially cause (undocumented) public
health effects or significant environmental damage.
Category B.2 - Creation of a serious hazard to public health or the environment.
Category B.3 - Illegal discharges containing significant quantities of concentrations of toxic or
hazardous materials.
Category B.4 - Any type of violation not mentioned previously which warrants a penalty
assessment under category B.
Category C - $500 to $2,000 per day. Violations of the Utah Water Pollution Control Act,
associated regularions, permits or orders to include:
Category C.l - Significant excursion of permit effluent limits.
Category C.2 - Substantial non-compliance with the requirements of a compliance schedule.
Category C.3 - Substantial non-compliance with monitoring and reporting requirements.
Category C.4 - Illegal discharge containing significant or concentrations of non toxic or non
hazardous materials.
Category C.5 - Any type of violation not mentioned previously which warrants a penalty
assessment under category C.
Category D - up to $500 per day. Minor violations of the Utah Water Pollution Control Act,
associated regulations, permits or orders to include:
Category D.l - Minor excursion of permit effluent limits.
Category D.2 - Minor violations of comphance schedule requirements.
Category D.3 - Minor violations of reporting requirements.
Category D.4 - Illegal discharges not covered in Categories A, B and C.
Category D.5 - Any type of violations not mentioned previously which warrants a penalty
assessment under category D. ^
Per discussion above, DRC will only seek penalties for violations for failure by DUSA to achieve
stable parameters prior to collecting groundwater samples. DUSA has been cited for this violation
previously in a November 17, 2009 NOV (Docket No. UGW09-06) and April 20, 2010 NOV (Docket
No. UGWlO-03. DUSA was fined $2,997 for the problem, which they paid on August 23, 2010.
Previous penalty calculations for the same violation have been calculated as Category D.5. Therefore,
for consistency the current standing violations (violations 1 and 3 of the Order) will be calculated in
the same category as in the past.
STATUTORY MAXIMUM PENALTY CALCULATION
Each well that was sampled without stable turbidity is considered to be a single violation/day.
Therefore a total of 5 violation days is calculated per the standing violations as detailed above.
Page 11
The statutory maximum penalty for Category D - 5 days X $500 per day = $2,500
ASSIGNED PENALTY AMOUNT WITHIN CATEGORY D.5
DRC consideration of credit as detailed in the Administrative Penalty Policy follows:
A. History of compliance or non-compliance;
Under UAC R317-1-8.3(A), two factors need to be considered, including previous violations
and degree of recidivism.
DRC Finding: DUSA was cited for the same violation in a past Notice of Violation and
Orders,UGW09-06 and UGWlO-03. Per the yGWlO-03 penalty calculation for this
violation, 50% credit was given. Since this is a re-occurrence and a potential pattem of non-
compliance is evident, the credit will be reduced to 25%.
B. Degree of willfulness and/or negligence:
Four factors need to be considered under the requirements pf UAC R317-1-8.3(B), inpluding:
1. How much control the violator had over and the foreseeability of the events constituting
the violation;
•/.^ • •" • • -. - -
2. Whether the violator made or could have made reasonable efforts to prevent the violation;
3. Whether the violator knew of the legal requirements which were violated;
4. Degree of recalcitrance.
DRC finds that:
i DUSA had control over the events constituting the violation, i.e., DUS A sampling staff
conducts groundwater sampling and should have followed exisfing QAP requirements
and allowed field parameters to stabilize within 10% over at least two consecufive
measurements prior to sample collecfion.
• DUSA could have made a reasonable effort to follow Part I.E. 1(a) of the Permit and
. Secfion 6.2.7(d)(v) of the DUSA QAP by allowing field parameters to stabihze within
10% over at least two consecufi ve measurements prior to sample collecfion.
• DUSA knew of the legal/Permit/QAP requirements which were specifically Hsted in
the DUSA QAP and Permit and also this is a re-occuning violation. DUSA was
previously cited for this same type of violation during 2009 and 2010.
• To the best of DRC knowledge, there is no recalcitrance regarding the violations,
however, since this is a re-occurrence of this violation no credit is recommended.
DRC notes that per the previous penalty calculation for the same violation (UGW 10-03)
DUSA was given 25% credit. The past calculation gave some credit for the "degree of
recalcitrance" considerations. Since this is a re-occurring violation, 0% credit wjjl be given
for this category.
C. Good faith efforts to comply;
Under UAC R3r7-1-8.3(C), this includes the Permittee's openness in dealing with the
violations, promptness in correction of problems, and degree of cooperation with the State.
This same violation has been cited in a past Notice of Violation and Order (UGWlO-03).
It was noted that the previous penalty calculation for this same violation allowed for a 25%
Page r2
credit in consideration of good faith efforts. This will be reduced to no credit based on the
re-occurrence of the same violation.
Penalty Calculation
Category D, which is a maximum of $500 per day penalty = $500
Credits: 1/3 (max $166) History of Compliance: (25% credit) = $42.00
1/3 (max $166) Degree of Willfulness and/or Negligence: (0% credit) = $ 0.00
1/3 (max $166) Good Faith Efforts to Comply: (0% credit) = $ 0.00
total credit = $42.00
Penalty per day violation: =$458.00
Number of violation days = 5
Total Category Penalty (Gravity Component) = $2,290.00
ADJUSTMENTS
According to R317-1-8.3, the civil penalty shall be calculated by adding the following adjustments to
the penalty amount:
a. Economic benefit - These include costs which were delayed or avoided due to the non-
compliance. A small economic benefit may have been gained by DUSA since the relevant
well purging did not continue until turbidity measurements stabilized (avoided costs),
however, this benefit would be very small and is not possible to quanfify since it is unclear
how much longer the pumping would need to have occurred. Therefore no economic
benefit calculation will be included in the penalty calculation.
b. Investigative costs No investigative costs are included for these violations. The violations
were the result of plan reviews by DRC.
Proposed Total Civil Penalty for Docket No. UGWl 1-02 (5 Violations): $2,290.00
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
White Mesa Mill
Settlement Agreement, Docket No. UGWl 1-02SA
UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF
DENISON MINES (USA) CORP.
1050 17™ STREET, SUITE 950
DENVER, CO 80265
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
DOCKET NUMBER UGWll 02SA
This SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (hereinafter "AGREEMENT") is between DENISON
MINES (USA) CORP. (hereinafter OPERATOR") and the UTAH WATER QUALITY
BOARD (hereinafter the "BOARD"), conceming violations of the Utah Water Quality Act {iht
Act), Utah Code Annotated ("UCA") §§19-5-101 to -124, &nd the Utah Administrative Code
("UAC")R317-lto-560.
1. The BOARD has authority to administer the Utah Water Quality Act, and the Utah
Administrative Code. UCA §§19-5-106, -115.
2. The CO-EXECUTIVE SECRETARY of the BOARD (hereinafter the
"CO-EXECUTIVE SECRETARY") will administer the terms and provisions of this
AGREEMENT. UCA §§19-5-106 and 115.
3. This AGREEMENT resolves violations 1 and 3 cited in the NOTICE OF VIOLATION
and ORDER, Docket Number UGWl 1-02 (hereinafter the "NOTICE") issued to the
OPERATOR on May 9, 2011, by the BOARD. It does not in any way relieve the
OPERATOR from any other obHgation imposed under the Act or any other State or
Federal laws.
4. The parties now desire to resolve this matter fully without further administrative
proceedings except to the extent provided herein by entering into this AGREEMEINT.
Entering into this AGREEMENT is not an admission of liability or factual allegation set
out in the NOTICE, nor is it an admission of or an agreement to any disputed facts or
disputed legal theories, nor is it an admission of any violation of any law, rule, regulation or
permit by the OPERATOR.
5. In resolution of the NOTICE referenced herein in paragraph 3, the OPERATOR agrees to
the settlement terms stated in paragraphs a. and b. below:
a. In resolution of violations of the NOTICE referenced in Paragraph 3 of this
AGREEMENT, the OPERATOR agrees to pay a total penalty amount of
$2,290.00 within 30 calendar days of the effective date of this AGREEMENT by
check. The check will be made payable to the State of Utah, delivered or mailed to
August 29,2010 Docket No. UGW11-02SA Page 1
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
White Mesa Mill
Settlement Agreement, Docket No. UGWl 1-028A
6.
the Division of Radiation Control; Department of Environmental Quality, 195 North
1950 West, P.O. Box 144850, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4850. The penalty has
been determined using the Pmalty Criteria for Civil Settlement Negotiations, Utah
Administrative Code {"UAC") R317-1 -8 which considers such factors as the nature,
severity and extent ofthe violations, history of noncompliance, degree of willfulness
and/or negligence, good faith efforts to comply, and economic benefit.
b. The CO-EXECUTIVE SECRETARY recognizes that^per the NOTICE Part E,2.
the OPERATOR was required to submit a report with revised statistics for Field pH
to be used for the development of revised Ground Water Compliance Limits. The
CO-EXECUTIVE SECRETARY received a request to extend the submittal date
via e-mail on June 30,2011. This request also included a summary of the suspected
root cause of pH exceedences, a discussion of actions taken, as well as
recommended future actions. Based on the OPERATOR'S request, as well as
additional discussion between the CO-EXECUTIVE SECRETARY and the
OPERATOR, additional coordination needs to be conducted to proceed with the
study. The CO-EXECUTIVE SECRETARY therefore considers the receipt ofthe
June 30, 2011 OPERATOR request as having met the conditions of the NQTICE
Part E.2., and recognizes that additional correspondence will be conducted outside
of the NOTICE requirements.
c. The CO-EXECUTIVE SECRETARY recognizes that all other required document
submission items of the NOTICE Part E, other than the Field pH Report hsted in
item 6.b. above, were received on or before their respective due date,
The deadline stipulated in item 6.a. above may be amended by prior written mutual
agreement of the parties. The party requesting the amendment must write to the other party
14 calendar days before the documented deadline and request an amendment of the
deadhne. The other party will either agree to of deny the amendment in writing within 10
calendar days of receipt of fhe request.
7. Nothing contained in this AGREEMENT shall preclude the BOARD from taking additional
actions to include additional penalties against the OPERATOR for permit violations not
resolved by this AGREEMENT.
8. If an agreement between the OPERATOR and the EXECUTIVE SECRETARY cannot be
reached in a dispute arising under any provision of this AGREEMENT, then the
OPERATOR or the CO-EXECUTIVE SECRETARY may commence a proceeding with the
BOARD under the Utah Administrative Procedures Ac t, Utah Code Annotated §§63G-4-101
to -601 to resolve the dispute. A final decision in any adjudicative proceeding shall be subject
to judicial review under applicable state law.
August 29, 2010 Docket NO.UGW11-02SA Page 2
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
White Mesa Mill
Settlement Agreement, Docket No. UGW11-02SA
9. Nothing in this AGREEMENT shall consfitute a waiver by the OPERATOR to raise in
defense any legal or factual contention for future allegations of noncompliance.
10. Nothing in this AGREEMENT shall constitute or be considered as a release from any claims,
to include natural resource damage claims, cause of action, or demand in law or equity which
' the STATE may have against the OPERATOR, or any other person, firm, partnership or
corporation for any liability arising out of or relating in any way to the release of pollutants to
waters of the State. •
AGREED to this day of , 201L /
DENISON MINES (USA) CORP UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD
By By_
David Frydenlund RustyLundberg
DUSA Vice President and Counsel Co-Executive Secretary
August 29,2010 Docket No. UGW 11-02SA ' Page 3
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
White Mesa Mill
Settlement Agreement, Docket No. UGWl 1-02SA
UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF
DENISON MINES (USA) CORP.
1050 17™ STREET, SUITE 950
DENVER, CO 80265
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
DOCKET NUMBER UGW11-02SA
This SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (hereinafter "AGREEMENT") is between DENISON
MINES (USA) CORP. (hereinafter 'OPERATOR") and the UTAH WATER QUALITY
BOARD (hereinafter the "BOARD"), conceming violations of the Utah Water Quality Act (the
Act), Utah Code Annotated ("UCA") §§19-5-101 to -72^^, and the Utah Administrative C&de
("UAC")R317-lto-560.
1. The BOARD has authority to administer the Utah Water Quahty Act, and the Utah
Administrative Code. UCA §§19-5-106,-115.
2. The CO-EXECUTIVE SECRETARY of the BOARD (hereinafter the
"CO-EXECUTIVE SECRETARY") will administer the terms and provisions of this
AGREEMENT. UCA §§19-5-106 and 115.
3. This AGREEMENT resolves violations 1 and 3 cited in the NOTICE OF VIOLATION
and ORDER, Docket Number UGWll-02 (hereinafter the "NOTICE") issued to the
OPERATOR on May 9, 2011, by the BOARD. It does not in any way relieve the
OPERATOR from any other obligation imposed under the Act or any other State or
Federal laws.
4. The parties now desire to resolve this matter fully without further administrative
proceedings except to the extent provided herein by entering into this AGREEMENT.
Entering into this AGREEMENT is not an admission of liability or factual allegation set
out in the NOTICE, nor is it an admission of or an agreement to any disputed facts or
disputed legal theories, nor is it an admission of any violation of any law, rule, regulation or
permit by the OPERATOR.
5.; In resolution of the NOTICE referenced herein in paragraph 3, the OPERATOR agrees to
the settlement terms stated in paragraphs a. and b. below:
a. In resolution of violations of the NOTICE referenced in Paragraph 3 of this
AGREEMENT, the OPERATOR agrees to pay a total penalty amount of
$2,290.00 within 30 calendar days of the effective date of this AGREEAffiNT by
check. The check will be made payable to the State of Utah, delivered or mailed to
August 29, 2010 Docket No. UGW11-02SA Page 1
a zr cr
ja
cr ru cr
r=\
a
a
I a '
CO
cr I
a r-
(Domestic Mail Only; No Insurahce Coverage Provided)
,F6r|deliyei^ ihf^^
• IC! AL <s '%&w Isssass
Postage $
Certified Fee
Postmarl( Retum Receipt Fee Postmarl(
RE: 8/29/11; findings & settlement agreement
TR
Jo Ann Tiscliler
Denison IVIines (USA) Corp
1050 Seventeentii ST, STE 950
Denver, Co 80265
•R;s:^'F,omr:3.800. August 2006 , 'S;ce Reverse .for Iristructicinsv;'
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
White Mesa Mill
Settlement Agreement, Docket No. UGWl l-02SA
the Division of Radiation Control, Department of Environmental Quahty, 195 North
1950 West, P.O. Box 144850, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4850. The penalty has
been determined usijng the Penalty Criteria for Civil Settlement Negotiations, Utah
Adniinistrative Code { "UAC") R317-1-8 which considers such factors as the nature,
severity and extent of the violations, history of noncompliance, degree of willfulness
and/or negligence, good faith efforts to comply, and economic benefit,
b. The CO-EXECUTIVE SECRETARY recognizes that per the NOTICE Part E.i
the OPERATOR was required to submit a report with revised statistics for Field pH
to be used for the development of revised Ground Water Compliance Limits. The
CO-EXECUTIVE SECRETARY received a request to extend the submittal date
via e-mail on June 30,2011. This request also included a summary of the suspected
root cause of pH exceedences, a discussion of actions taken, as well as
recommended future actions. Based on the OPERATOR'S request, as well as
additional discussion between the CO-EXECUTIVE SECRETARY and the
OPERATOR, additional coordination needs to be conducted to proceed with the
Study. The CO-EXECUTIVE SECRETARY therefore considers the receipt of the
June 30, 2011 OPERATOR request as having met the conditions of the NOTICE
Part E.2., and recognizes that additional correspondence will be conducted outside
of the NOTICE requirements. \
The CO-EXECUTiVE SECRETARY recognizes that all other required document c.
submission items o
item 6.b. above, were received on or before their respective due date.
The deadline stipulated in
agreement of the parties. T
the NOTICE Part E, other than the Field pH Report listed in
item 6.a. above may be amended by prior written mutual
le party requesting the amendment must write to the other party
14 calendar days before the documented deadhne and request an amendment of the
deadhne. The other party will either agree to or deny the amendment in writing within 10
calendar days of receipt of the request.
7. Nothing contained in this AGREEMENT shall preclude the BOARD from taking additional
actions to include additional penalties against the OPERATOR for permit violations not
resolved by this AGREEMENT.
8. If an agreement between the OPERATOR and the EXECUTIVE SECRETARY cannot be
reached in a dispute arising under any provision of this AGREEMENT, then the
OPERATOR or the CO-EXECUTIVE SECRETARY may commence a proceeding with the
BOARD under the Utah Administrative Procedures Ac t, Utah Code Annotated §§63G-ff-101
to -601 to resolve the dispJte. A final decision in any adjudicative proceeding shall be subject
to judicial review under applicable state law.
August 29, 2010 Docket No. UGW11-02SA Page 2
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
White Mesa Mill
Settlement Agreement, Docket No. UGW11-02SA
tH- AGREEMENT shairconstitute a waiver by the OPElUTOR to^^m^^^^^^^^
.O.Noth.g.ntbtsAGREEMENT—^^^^^
to include natural resource d^^^^age cl^m^au^e ot a person, firm, partnershtp or
the STATE may have agamst the OPEB^TOR ^ ^^^^^^^ of pollutants to
corporation for any liabihty ansmg out of or relatmg m y y
waters of the State.
AGREED to this day of.
DENISON MINES (USA) CORP
_,2011.
UTAH WATER QUALITYBOARD
By. David Frydenlund
DUS A Vice President and Counsel
By. Rusty Lundberg
Co-Executive Secretary
August 29,2010
Docket No. UGWli-02SA Page 3