DRC-2011-007532 - 0901a068802843d2

State of Utah
GARY R. HERBERT
Govemor
GREG BELL
Lieutenant Govemor
Department of i
Environmental Quality
X Amanda Smith
Executive Director
DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
Rusty Lundberg
Director
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM IDOM , I
Phil Goble, Section Manager
Russell J. Topham, P.E.
October 13, 2011
Review ofthe 2"'* Quarter, 2011 (dated August 31, 2011) DMT Performance Standards
Monitoring Report and Cell 4A and Cell 4B BAT Performance Standards Monitoring
Report (Report). Groundwater Discharge Permit (GWDP) UG370004 - Denison Mines
(USA) Corp. (DUSA) White Mesa Mill, Blanding, Utah
This is a summary of Utah Division of Radiation Control (DRC) staff review of the DUSA DMT
Performance Monitoring Report and Cell 4A and cell 4B BAT Performance Standards Monitoring Report
dated August 31, 2011, and covering the 2"'* Quarter (April - June) 2011 monitoring period. DRC received
the Report on August 31, 2011 in both hard copy and soft copy CD formats. Discussions in this document
reference the White Mesa Mill Tailings Management System and Discharge Minimization Technology
(DMT) Monitoring Plan, Revision 11.1 (DMT/BAT Plan). The DMT/BAT Plan in force during the Period
in question was executed on January 20, 2011.
After review of this report, DRC staff findings and recommendations are as follows:
1. DUSA should revise the Report to include the weekly slimes drain maximum/minimum fluid
level monitoring data in support of compliance with Part 1 .F.2 ofthe GWDP and Part 3;l(b)(v) of
the DMT Monitoring Plan. DRC should prepare and send a Request for Information relative to
this issue.
2. DUSA has provided the data required in Part 1 .D.3(b)(2) of the GWDP. The data demonstrate
compliance with the requirements of the GWDP for slimes drain head recovery testing.
3. The data presented in the report demonstrate DUSA compliance with the solution pool
operational requirements of the License and the DMT/BAT plan in force during the quarter.
DUSA should revise the Report to include Week 5 solution pool elevation monitoring data which
did not appear in the Report. DRC should prepare and send a Request for Information relative to
this issue.
4. DUSA failed to monitor the Cell 4B solution pool elevation until May 31, 2011, carrying over the
failure to monitor from the first quarter of 2011. In a letter addressing the Cell 4B failure to
monitor DUSA provides statements that appear to conflict as to the date DUSA became aware of
its violation ofthe monitoring requirement. DUSA should clarify how the decision on or about
168 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, UT „
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144850 • Salt Uke City, UT 84114-4850
Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • T.D.D. [phone]
www.deq.utah.gov
Printed on 100% recycled paper
Page 3
3. Attachment C to the Report contains data from the monthly recovery head measurements
(discussed in the next paragraph).
4. The recovery head monitoring data provides indirect evidence that DUSA has maintained the fluid
level in the Cell 2 slimes drain as low as reasonably achievable, as required in GWDP. Part
l.D.3(b)(l).
Finding: DUSA should revise the Report to include the weekly slimes drain maximum/minimum fluid level
monitoring data in support of compliance wiih Part 1.F.2 of the GWDP and Part 3, l(b)(v) ofthe DMT
Monitoring Plan.
Part 1 .D.3(b)(2) of the revision of the GWDP in force during the second quarter of 2011 required DUSA to
perform a monthly slimes drain head recovery test at each tailings cell slimes drain. Specifications for the
head recovery test appear in Parts 1 .D.3(b)(2)(i) and (ii) of the GWDP. Part 8.2(e) requires each quarteriy
report to contain the current year monthly fluid level values and a graphical comparison with previous
years for the Cell 2 slimes drain. Part 1 .D.3(b)(3) of the GWDP an analytical test to determine annual
slimes drain compliance. The analytical procedure provides a means of demonstrating the success of
dewatering operations in the tailings cell. The average annual fluid level in the slimes drain must fall each
year for the slimes drain to remain in compliance. The latest revision ofthe GWDP changes the recovery
test fi-equency from monthly to quarterly.
5. Attachment C to the Report contains the required head recovery test data.
6. Attachment D to the Report contains the required graphical comparison.
7. Table 1, below, provides a partial analysis of the data from the head recovery test. The
methodology used falls short of that specified in Part I.D.3(b)(3) of the GWDP, inasmuch as
insufficient data exists at present fully to apply the required method, and because the method is
designed to demonstrate annual compliance using four ftill years' data. Table 1 presents a look at
the monthly and arithmetic mean depth to fluid in the Cell 2 slimes drain for the first six rnonths of
the three years for which data is available. While not definitive, the analysis in Table 1 indicates a
trend toward compliance.
Year/Month January February March April May June Mean
2011' 13.15 10.42 11.31 11.57 13.17 12.18 12.0
2010^ 14.0 12.4 10.9 10.3 10.3 10.1 11.3
2009^ 11.3 9.2 8.8 12.0 10.2 11.1 10.4
Values presented in Attachment C to the 2011 Quarter 1 and (garter 2 Reports
^ Values interpolated from the Graph of Cell 2 Slimes Drain Water Levels Over Time presented as Attachment D to the 2011 Quarter 2 Report
Table 1: Depth to Fluid Surface from Top of Slimes Drain Access Port
8. The Report for the fourth quarter of 2010 contained Cell 2 slimes drain recovery test data which
indicated violation ofthe criteria in Part l.D.3(b)(3) of the GWDP. That issue is being addressed
separately from this review.
Finding: DUSA has provided the data required in Part I.D.3(b)(2) of the GWDP. The data demonstrate
compliance with the requirements of the GWDP for slimes drain head recovery testing.
Page 2
February 1, 2011 not to measure the fluid level in Cell 4B in deference to worker safety does not
constitute awareness on that date of the violation. DRC should issue a Request for Information to
obtain clarification of the apparent conflict. DRC should also prepare a Notice of Enforcement
Discretion to document continuation of the Cell 4B failure to monitor and to acknowledge the
retum to compliance,
5. DUSA should revise the Report to include data from tailings beach elevation and area surveys.
DRC should send a Request for Information to expedite this Report revision.
6. DUSA should amend the Report to include leak detection system monitoring data and leakage
rate calculations for Cell 1 and Cell 3. DRC should prepare a Request for Information addressing
this need.
7. DUSA should reinstate solution pool elevation monitoring in Cell 4A to facilitate determination
of allowable FML leak rate. Cell 4 A solution pool monitoring data and the numerical
determination of compliance with FML leak rate standards for Cell 4A and Cell 4B should appear
in the Report text and/or Attachments. DRC requested a retum to monitoring Cell 4A solution
pool elevations in its review comments for the 2011 First Quarter Report, which request post
dated the Second Quarter reporting period. DRC should prepare a Request for Information to
facilitate revision ofthe Report to include the numerical determination of compliance with FML
leak rate standards for Cell 4A and Cell 4B.
8. DUSA experienced failure of the Cell 4A leak detection data logger and attempted repair in
accordance with GWDP intentions. The repair did not succeed, and subsequent repair efforts have
extended well beyond the 24 hour limit, violating the GWDP. Redundant daily manual logging
has prevented the automation failure from resulting in a loss of data. DRC should issue a Notice
of Enforcement Discretion to document the violation and the efforts DUSA made to return to
compliance.
9. DUSA completed no work on the approved Cell 1 liner repair plan during the Report period.
10. Data presented in the report demonstrate DUSA compliance with the decontamination pad
inspection and maintenance requirements of the DMT/BAT Plan.
11. DUSA has met the provisions of the DMT/BAT Plan with regard to feed material stockpiles.
1.0 Slimes Drain Water Level Monitoring
Part 1 .F.2 of the GWDP requires DUSA to include in the Report all DMT performance standards
monitoring detailed in Parts 1 .D.3 and 1 .E.7 ofthe GWDP. Part 1 .D.3(b)(l) ofthe GWDP requires DUSA
to maintain the fluid level in the slimes drain of Cells 2 and 3 as low as reasonably achievable at all times,
and to demonstrate that performance through adherence to the current DMT Monitoring Plan. Part 1 .E.7(b)
of the GWDP requires monthly monitoring and recording of the depth to wastewater in the. slimes drain
access pipe as described in Part 1 .D.3 ofthe GWDP and the current DMT Monitoring Plan. Part 3.1(b)(v)
requires DUSA to monitor and record weekly the depth to wastewater in the Cell 2 slimes drain access pipe
to determine maximum and minimum head before and after a pumping cycle, respectively.
1. Part 4.1 of the Report asserts that the above discussed monitoring requirements only pertain to Cell
2 for the reporting period, as dewatering operations have not commenced in Cell 3.
2. The Report contains no weekly monitoring data or discussion of the results of that data.
Page 4
2.0 Tailings Wastewater Pool Eleyation Monitoring and Roberts Fond Solution Level Monitoring
Part 1 .E.7(a) of the GWDP requires DUSA to monitor and record weekly the elevation ofthe wastewater
pool in Tailings Cells 1 and 3 to ensure compliance with Condition 10.3 of the License. Part 1 .D.3(e)
requires DUSA to operate Roberts Pond so as to provide a minimum two feet of freeboard at all times. Part
3.1(d) of the DMT/BAT Plan requires DUSA to measure the solution pool elevation in Cells 4A and 4B
weekly, and the tailings beach maximum elevation and area within Cells 4A and 4B monthly.
Tailings have nearly completely filled Cell 3. Recognizing this, letters from the Executive Secretary dated
January 27, 2011 and March 14, 2011 formally eliminated the need for solution pool elevation
measurement in Cell 3. The previously cited January 27, 2011 letter and another letter from the Executive
Secretary dated March 15, 2011 concluded a process obviating the need for freeboard-related solution pool
elevation monitoring in Cell 4A. However, Part 3.1(a) of the DMT/BAT Plan requires monitoring solution
pool elevations in Cells 4A and 4B to facilitate determination of compliance with FML leakage rate
limitations.
9. Attachment A to the Report contains weekly pool elevations for Cell 1 indicating compliance with
the prescribed freeboard requirements. Week 5 data were not presented.
10. As noted above, no requirement for weekly solution pool elevation measurement at Cell 3 existed
during the second quarter. Attachment A to the report reflects no measurements for the reported
quarter.
11. Attachment A to the Report contains weekly pool elevations for Roberts Pond indicating
compliance with the prescribed freeboard requirements. Week 5 data were not presented.
12. Attachment A to the Report contains the words "Inadvertently omitted" in lieu of the weekly
solution pool elevation measurement for Cell 4A. DUSA failed to take the required solution pool
measurements in Cell 4A during the first quarter of 2011; thus the lack of measurements during the
second quarter constitutes a continuance of that noncompliant practice. In a letter from the
Executive Secretary to Jo Ann Tischler dated August 31, 2011 details DRC review of the First
Quarter Report. In that letter DUSA is required to reinstate the Cell 4A solution pool elevation
monitoring protocol for the second quarter. Unfortunately, the date of the letter postdates the end
of the reporting quarter in question. However, inability to perform the required FML leakage rate
calculation during the first quarter should have alerted DUSA to the requirement to monitor. Cell
4A solution pool monitoring will receive ftirther comment under the discussion of leak detection
system monitoring performance.
13. Attachment A to the Report indicates solution pool elevation readings for Cell 4B for Weeks Nine
and Eleven through Thirteen of the second quarter, all of which demonstrate compliance with the
freeboard requirements for Cell 4B. The lack of data for the first eight weeks (exclusive of Week
Five) is supported in Attachment A to the Report with the assertion that the fluid levels were too
low to survey. The supporting rationale for omitting the measurement for Week Ten involved
constmction of a platform to facilitate performing fiiture measurements. The constmction
interfered with access to the designated measurement point. Part 3.0 ofthe Report asserts that the
solution pool elevation in Cell 4B obtained a maximum level during the quarter sufficient to
provide in excess of thirteen feet of freeboard, well short of placing Cell 4B in noncompliance.
In a letter to the Executive Secretary dated June 6, 2011 DUSA reports that Cell 4b began
receiving fluid on Febmary 1, 2011. The referenced letter asserts that the failure to monitor was
discovered on May 31, 2011. While discussing root cause analysis of the failure to monitor DUSA
Page 5
discloses a conscious decision not to jeopardize worker safety prior to taking the initial pool
elevation measurement on May 31, 2011. Therefore, the decision not to measure was made prior to
the May 31, 2011 discovery date claimed in the Letter. This discrepancy deserves exploration.
14. The report contains no data or narrative relative to tailings beach surveys for any cell!
Findings: The data presented in the report demonstrate DUSA compliance with the solution pool
operational requirements of the License and the DMT/BAT plan in force during the quarter. DUSA should
revise the Report to include Week 5 solution pool elevation monitoring data.
DUSA failed to monitor the Cell B solution pool elevation until May 31, 2011, carrying over the failure to
monitor from the first quarter of 2011. In a letter addressing the Cell 4B failure to monitor DUSA provides
statements that appear to conflict as to the date DUSA became aware of its violation of the monitoring
requirement. DUSA should clarify how the decision on or about February 1, 2011 not to measure the fluid
level in Cell 4B in deference to worker safety does not constitute awareness on that date of the violation.
DUSA should revise the Report to include data from tailings beach elevation and area surveys.
3.0 Leak Detection System Monitoring
Part 3.1 (a) of the DMT/BAT Plan requires DUSA to monitor the leak detection system (LDS) for Cell 1
and Cell 3 weekly. DUSA would either report the LDS as dry or report the fluid level in the LDS monitor
pipe. Presence of fluid in the LDS triggers a requirement to extract the fluid, measure the extracted volume,
and compute a leakage rate for the cell.
15. Neither the Report nor the Attachments thereto provide leak detection monitoring data for Cell 1 or
Cell 3.
Findings: DUSA should amend the Report to include leak detection system monitoring and leakage rate
calculations for Cell 1 and Cell 3.
Part 1 .D.6(a) of the GWDP requires DUSA to operate Cell 4A in a manner to maintain fluid head in the
leak detection system (LDS) not more than 1 foot above the lowest point on the lower FML on the cell
floor. Part 1 .D.6(b) requires that the leak rate through the Cell 4A FML not exceed 24,160 gallons per day.
Part 3.1(a) of the DMT/BAT Plan reiterates the GWDP requirements just discussed. Table l A in Appendix
E to the DMT/BAT Plan relates solution pool head above the liner system to maximum allowable FML
leak rate.
16. Calculation of solution pool head requires measuring the solution pool elevation. As previously
discussed, DUSA failed to monitor the solution pool elevation for Cell 4A for the entire reporting
period. Thus, DUSA has based the calculation of allowable FML leak rate upon an estirriate of the
solution pool elevation.
17. Attachment F to the report presents LDS fluid level monitoring data and number of gallons
pumped from the LDS.
18. Quantities of fluid pumped from the Cell 4A LDS support a finding of compliance with the
operational requirements of the GWDP and DMT/BAT Plan.
Findings: DUSA should reinstate solution pool elevation monitoring in Cell 4A to facilitate determination
of allowable FML leak rate. Cell 4A solution pool monitoring data and the numerical determination of
Page 6
compliance with FML leak rate standards for Cell 4A and Cell 4B should appear in the Report text and/or
Attachments.
Part 1 .D. 13(a) of the GWDP requires DUSA to operate Cell 4B in a manner to maintain fluid head in the
LDS not more than 1 foot above the lowest point on the lower FML on the cell floor. Part 1 .D.r3(b) ,
requires that the leak rate through the Cell 4B FML not exceed 26,145 gallons per day. Part 3.1 (a) of the
DMT/BAT Plan reiterates the GWDP requirements just discussed. Table IB in Appendix E to the
DMT/BAT Plan relates solution pool head above the liner system to maximum allowable FML leak rate.
19. Calculation of solution pool head requires measuring the solution pool elevation. As previously
discussed, DUSA failed to monitor the solution pool elevation for Cell 4A through May 31, 2011.
Thus, DUSA has based the calculafion of allowable FML leak rate in part upon an estimate of the
solution pool elevation. DUSA has complied with the solution pool elevation monitoring
requirement since May 31, 2011, except while constmcting an access platform system during the
week of June 6.
20. Attachment F to the report presents LDS fluid level monitoring data and number of gallons
pumped froni the LDS.
21. Quantities of fluid pumped from the Cell 4A LDS support a finding of compliance with the
operational requirements of the GWDP and DMT/BAT Plan.
Part 1 .E. 8(a)( 1) of the GWDP requires DUSA to provide continuous operation of the Cell 4A LDS
pumping and monitoring equipment, and to make such equipment operational within 24 hours of discovery
of a failure of such equipment. Part 1 .E. 12(a)(1) of the GWDP requires DUSA to provide continuous
operation of the Cell 4B LDS pumping and monitoring equipment, and to make such equipment
operational within 24 hours of discovery of a failure of such equipment.
22. On June 27, 2011 plant personnel discovered that the LDS monitoring datalogger had Ceased to
record on June 7, 2011. Plant personnel rebooted the system and observed resumption of data
logging. Plant personnel checked the logger more frequently following the reboot, and repeated the
system reboot on July I, 2011.
23. Upon discovery that rebooting the system did not correct the failure, DUSA consulted with the
equipment manufacturer for trouble shooting and repair advice. DUSA has scheduled repairs.
24. Failure to repair a failed system and bring it to full operation within 24 hours constitutes a violation
ofthe GWDP.
25. DUSA performs redundant manual collection of the same data collected by the data logger, so full
data replacement has occurred.
26. CeU 4B data logging equipment experienced no logging failure.
Findings: DUSA experienced failure of the Cell 4A leak detection data logger and attempted repair in
accordance with GWDP intentions. The repair did not succeed, and subsequent repair efforts have
extended well beyond the 24 hour limit, violating the GWDP. Redundant daily manual logging has
prevented the automation failure from resulting in a loss of data.
Page 7
Part 1 .E.7(f) of the GWDP stipulates procedures to implement upon detection of any FML defect or
damage. On September 22, 2010 DRC extended conditional approval for a liner repair plan for Cell 1.
DUSA committed to complete repairs under that plan by July 31, 2012.
27. DUSA performed no repair work on the Cell 1 liner during the Report period.
Findings: DUSA completed no work on the approved Celll liner repair plan during the Report period.
4.0 Decontamination Pad Inspections
Part 3.1(e)(i) of the DMT/BAT Plan sets forth requirements for monitoring the New Decontamination Pad.
Subpart (B) requires weekly measurement of fluid level in the inspection portals tb (detect leakage ofthe
primary containment barrier. Subpart (F) imposes requirements to inspect weekly the integrity ofthe
concrete comprising the New Decontamination Pad surfaces and to repair any cracks greater than 1/8 inch
in width or other abnormalities in the pad surface. Part 3.1(e)(ii) imposes requirements to inspect weekly
the integrity of the concrete comprising the Existing Decontamination Pad surfaces and to repair any cracks
greater than 1/8 inch in width or other abnormalities in the pad surface.
28. The inspection portals of the New Decontamination Pad contained no fluid at the weekly
inspections.
29. No cracking in excess of 1/8 inch or other abnormality of the surface of the New Decontamination
Pad was observed during the Report quarter.
30. Although measuring less that 1/8 inch, cracks in the surface of the Existing Decontamination Pad
were repaired. Inspectors noted no other anomalies on the pad surface.
Findings: Data presented in the report demonstrate DUSA compliance with the decontamination pad ,
inspection and maintenance requirements of the DMT/BAT Plan.
5.0 Feedstock Storage Area Inspections
Part 3.3 of the DMT/BAT Plan requires weekly confirmation that bulk feedstock storage occurs in the
areas defined in the GWDP, that a four foot buffer exist between feedstock stockpiles and the storage area
boundary, and that altemate feedstock stored outside the defined feedstock storage area is maintained in
water tight containers or are placed on a hardened surface. .
31. Location of stockpiles within the bulk storage area appeared properly placed.
32. Two dmms of Cameco Regeneration Material developed leaks. Plant personnel placed this
material in overpack.
Findings: DUSA has met the provisions of the DMT/BAT Plan with regard to feed material stockpiles.
6.0 Recommendations
1. DUSA should revise the Report to include the weekly slimes drain maximum/minimum fluid level
monitoring data in support of compliance with Part 1.F.2 of the GWDP and Part 3.1(b)(v) ofthe
DMT Monitoring Plan. DRC should prepare and send a Request for Information relative to this
issue.
Page 8
2. DUSA should revise the Report to include Week 5 solution pool elevation monitoring data which
did not appear in the Report. DRC should prepare and send a Request for Information relative to
this issue.
3. DRC should issue a Request for Information to obtain clarification of the apparent conflict in
statements regarding the date DUSA became aware of the failure to monitor solution pool
elevations in Cell 4B. DRC should also prepare a Notice of Enforcement Discretion to document
continuation of the Cell 4B failure to monitor from the First Quarter 2011 and to acknowledge the
retum to compliance.
4. DUSA should revise the Report to include data from tailings beach elevation and area surveys.
DRC should send a Request for Information to expedite addition of tailings beach survey data in
the Report.
5. DRC should prepare a Request for Information seeking DUSA amendment of the Report to include,
leak detection system monitoring data and leakage rate calculations for Cell 1 and Cell 3.
6. DRC should prepare a Request for Information to facilitate revision of the Report to include the
numerical determination of compliance with FML leak rate standards for Cell 4A and Cell 4B.
7. DRC should issue a Notice of Enforcement Discretion to document the violation of the GWDP
with respect to the failure and attempted repair ofthe Cell 4A LDS data logger DUSA's retum to
compliance.