DRC-2011-005472 - 0901a0688022d2a9

State of Utah
GARY R. HERBERT
Governor
GREG BELL
Lieutenant Governor
May 9, 2011
Department of
Environmental Quality
Amanda Smith
Executive Director
DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
Rusty Lundberg
Director
•2011-0014
CERTIFIED MAIL
(Return Receipt Requested)
Mr. David C Frydenlund
Vice President and General Counsel
Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (DUSA)
1050 Seventeenth Sta Suite 950
Denver, Colorado, 80265
Subject: DUSA r\Quarter, 2010 (dated May 19, 2010), 2"^ Quarter (dated August 26, 2010), and 3^'
Quarter, 2010 (dated November 22,2010) Groundwater Monitoring Reports: Notice of
Violation and Compliance Order, Docket No. UGWn-02
Dear Mr. Frydenlund:
The enclosedNotice of Violation and Compliance Order ("NOV/CO") is based on Division of Radiation
Control O^RQ findi^^ the review of the DUSA, 1^ 2"^ Quarter, 2010 Groundwater Monitoring
Reports for the White Mesa Uranium Mill facility near Blanding, Utah. Please give this order your
immediate attention.
A written response is required within 30 calendar days after receipt of this NOTICE. This order is iully
M^w?^?A'''''^'^ appealed in writing within 30 calendar days, as described in the ^'Notice" section of this
NU V/CO. Any response or written answer to this NOV/CO should be addressed to Rusty Lundberg Co-
uS? 84^^4 4850^^^^ ^""^"^^ ^""^'^^ ^ North 1950 West, P.O. Box 144850, Salt Lake City,
UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD
Rusty Lundbi^ ^
Co-Executive Secretary
Enclosure: Notice of Violation and Order, Docket No. UGWl 1-02
195 North 1950 West • Salt Uke City, UT
' Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144850 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850
Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] •T.D.D. [phone]
www.deq.iitah.gov
Printed on 100% recycled paper
UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
1050 SEVENTEENTH ST. SUITE 950
DENVER, COLORADO, 80265
DOCKET NUMBER UGWll-02
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND
COMPLIANCE ORDER
A. STATUTORY AUTHORITY
This NOTICE OF VIOLATION and COMPLIANCE ORDER (NOV/CO) is issued to
Denison Mines (USA) Corporation (hereinafter DUSA) facility, by the UTAH WATER
QUALITY BOARD (hereinafter the BOARD) under the Utah Water Quality Act, Utah Code Ann.
§§ 19-5-101 to 19-5-123 (the ACT), including sections 19-5-104, 19-5-106, 19-5-111 and 19-5-
115. This NOV/CO is also issued in accordance with the Utah Administrative Procedures Act,
Utah Code Amia §§ 63G4-101 to 63G-4-601. The BOARD has authorized the Co-Executive
Secretary ofthe Board, (Co-Executive Secretary) to issue such NOTICES AND ORDERS in
accordance with §19-5-106(8) of the Utah CodCa
B. APPLICABLE STATUTORY AND REGULATORY PROVISIONS
la The Utah Water Quality Act (UC 19-5-107) mandates that:
''..At is unlawful for any person to discharge a pollutant into waters ofthe state or to
cause pollution which constitutes a menace to public health and welfare, or is harmful
to wildlife, fish or aquatic life, or impairs domestic, agricultural, industrial,
recreational, or other beneficial uses of water, or to place or cause to be placed any
wastes in a location where there is probable cause to believe it will cause pollution,'''
2a DUSA was issued Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit NOa UGW370004 (hereinafter
Permit) on March 8, 2005a Said Permit was last modified by the Co-Executive Secretary
onFebruary 15, 2011a
3a Part laCal of the Permit states: ''Ground Water Compliance Limits - contaminant
concentrations measured in each monitoring well shall not exceed the Ground Water
Compliance Limits (GWCL) defined in Table 2, below. Groundwater quality at the site must at
all times meet all the applicable GWQSand ad hoc GWQS defined in R317-6 even though this
permit does not require monitoring for each specific contaminant. "
4. Part laEel(a) of the Permit requires that . .all sampling shall be conducted to ensure
collection of the representative samples, and reliability and validity of groundwater
monitoring data. All groundwater sampling shall be conducted in accordance with the
currently approved Groundwater Monitoring Quality Assurance Plan. "
5. Part IaGa2 of the Permit states that: "...out-of compliance status exists when the
concentration of a pollutant in two consecutive samples from a compliance monitoring
point exceeds a GWCL in Table 2 of this Permit. "
May 9, 2011 Docket No. UGWll-02 Page 1
6a Part I.G.4 of the Permit in part requires that "...if the facility is out of compliance, the
following is required:
a) The Permittee shall notify the Executive Secretary ofthe out of compliance status within
24-hours after detection of that status, followed by a written notice within 5 calendar days
ofthe detection.
b) The Permittee shall continue accelerated sampling pursuant to Part T. G. I, unless the
Executive Secretary determines that other periodic sampling is appropriate, until-the
facility is brought into compliance.
c) The Permittee shall prepare and submit within 30 calendar days to the Executive
Secretary a plan and a time schedule for assessment of the sources, extent and potential
dispersion of the contamination, and an evaluation ofpotential 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... "
7. The DUSA Quality Assurance Plan (hereinafter DUSA QAP) was originally dated
November 17,2006, (Revision 1.0); and was approved by the Co-Executive Secretary on
December 1, 2006. Most recently DUSA proposed another revision to the DUSA QAP,
dated March 22, 2010 (Revision 6a0) which was approved by the Co-Executive Secretary
on April 30, 2010a
8a Section 6.2.7(d)(v) of the DUSA QAP, in part requires that DlJSAi'Takejneasurement^^^
field parameters (pH, specific conductance, temperature, redox potential and turbidity)
during well purging, using the Field Parameter Meter and turbidity measuring instrument.
These measurements will be recorded on the Field Data Worhheet. Purging is completed
after two casing volumes have been removed and the field parameters pH, temperature,
specific conductance, redox potential (Eh) and turbidity have stabilized to within 10% over
at least two consecutive measurements...
C. FINDINGS OF FACT
1 a Denison Mines (USA) Corporation (hereinafter DUSA) facility receives and processes
natural uranium-bearing ores and certain specified alternate feed materials, and possesses
byproduct material in the form of uranium waste tailings and other uranium byproduct
waste generated by the licensee's milling operationSa This facility is located approximately
6 miles south of Blanding, Utah on a tract of land in Sections 28, 29,32, and 33, Township
37 South, Range 22 East, Salt Lake Baseline and Meridian, San Juan County, Utah.
2a DUSA submitted a report titled ''White Mesa Uranium Mill Groundwater Monitoring
Report 1 Quarter (January - March) 2010" to the Utah Division of Radiation Control
(hereinafter DRC) dated May 19, 2010 (hereinafter 1'^ Quarter, 2010 Report). This report
was received by the DRC by its respective due date (March 1, 201 l)a
3 a DUSA submitted a report titled "White Mesa Uranium Mill Groundwater Monitoring
Report 2"^^ Quarter (April - June) 2010" to the DRC dated August 26, 2010 (hereinafter 2"^^
Quarter, 2010 Report/ This report was received by the DRC by its respective due date
(September 1, 2010).
May 9,2011 Docket No. UGWl l-02 ' Page 2
4.
5.
DUSA submitted a report titled "White Mesa Uranium Mill Groundwater Monitoring
Report 3"^ Quarter (July - September) 2010" to the DRC dated November 22, 2010
(hereinafter 3"" Quarter, 2010 Report). This report was received by the DRC by its
respective due date (December 1, 2010).
DUSA submitted a letter dated February 1,2011 titled "Proposed Correction of
Groundwater Control Limits ("GWCL's") for pH." In the letter, DUSA: 1) explains the
existing GWCL's for groundwater pH are in error due to reliance on historical laboratory
values instead of field measurements, and 2) proposes a plan to submit revised descriptive
statistics for Field pH to be used as revised GWCL's. DUSA commits to submit its
revised statistics and proposed GWCLs for field pH by the end of the 2"'' quarter of 2011,
or June 30, 2011.
6. The DRC conducted a review of the l ", 2"^ and 3"* Quarter, 2010 reports to determine
compliance with State Rules and Regulations and terms of the Permit.
7. The White Mesa Uranium Mill has 22 Point of Compliance (hereinafter POC) wells. Of
these 22 wells, 16 are in accelerated monitoring status under Part I.G.I of the Permit. In
addition, a total of 15 contaminants are involved, for details see Table 1 below.
Table 1. Monitoring Wells and Contaminants in Accelerated Status
POC Well Contaminants in Accelerated Status
MW-3 Selenium, Field pH, and Fluoride
MW-3A Field pH, Sulfate, and TDS
MW-11 Manganese and Tetrahydrofuran (THF)
MW-12 Selenium
MW-14 FieldjpH
MW-18 Thallium, Field pH, Sulfate, and TDS
MW-19 Field pH
MW-23 Field pH
MW-24 Cadmium, Thallium, and Field pH
MW-25 Uranium
M W-26 Nitrate + Nitrite (as N), Uranium, Chloroform, Dichloromethane,
Field^H, Chloride, and TDS
MW-27 Nitrate + Nitrite (as N), Field pH, Sulfate, and TDS
MW-28 Field pH and Chloride
MW-30 Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) and Selenium
MW-31 Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) and TDS
MW-32 Gross Alpha and Field pH
Contrary to the requirements of Part I.Eal(a) ofthe Permit and Section 6.2.7(d)(v) ofthe
DUSA QAP, DUSA failed to allow turbidity to stabilize within 10% before collecting
groundwater samples in 8 wells during the 2""^ Quarter, June, and July, 2010 monitoring
events, as shown in Table 2 beloWa
Table 2. Failure to Achieve Stable Parameters Before Sample Collection
Groundwater
Monitoring Event Well
Second to Last
Turbidity
Measurement (NTU)
Last Turbidity
Measurement (NTU)
%
Difference
2"^^ Otr, 2010 MW-17^^^ 117.5 234.1^-^ 92%
2"'*Otr,2010 MW-20^'^ 0 @ 5.82 gallons 0.3 (§5.89 gallons 00
2"'Otr, 2010 MW-25 134.4 @ 51.86 gallons 186.3 (g 52.08 gallons 39%
2"^0tr, 2010 MW-29 60.3 @ 31.24 gallons 70.3 @ 31.46 gallons 17%
June, 2010 MW-26^^^ 2.9^^^ 7.1-^^^ 145%
May 9, 2011 Docket No. UGWri-02 Page 3
July, 2010 MW-14^^^ 34.8 @ 32.33 gallons 72:4® 33 gallons 108%
July, 2010 MW-26 9.4^^^ 31.5 235% r
July, 2010 MW-31 33,2 @ 78.98 gallons 27.2 (g 79.20 gallons -18%
Footnotes:
1) Data for this well was obtained from Tab B of the 2"^^ Quarter 2010 Groundwater Monitoring Report
2) The Field Data Worksheet did not specific how many gallons were pumped at the time parameter measurements were taken in well M W-
17 during the 2"** Quarter 2010 sampling event
3) Data for this well was obtained from Tab C of the 2™* Quarter 2010 Groundwater Monitoring Report
4) The Field Data Worksheet did not specific how many gallons were pumped at the time parameter measurements were taken in well MW^
26 during the June 2() 10 sampling event
5) Data for this well was obtained from Tab C of the S'''Quarter 2010 Groundwater Monitoring Report
6) The Field Data Worksheet did not specific how many gallons were pumped at the time parameter measurements were taken in well MW-
26 during the July 2010 sampling event
7) Review of the 1", 2"^, 3"* Quarter, 2010 reports show a total of 4 field parameter measurements were collected and reported in each well
This is the third time DUSA has had this problem in the past two yearSa This problem was
first identified during DRC review of the 1^^ Quarter, 2009 groundwater monitoring report.
In that instance, the problem was brought to the company's attention in a November 17,
2009 NOV (Violation No. 2)a DUSA responded to that action with a December 23,2009
letter, in which they daim: ''Sample technicians have been re-apprised of the requirements
at Sections 6.2.7.(d)(v) and 6 2.7.(d)(vi) ofthe QAP that 2 casing volumes must be
evacuated and that stable field parameters must be observed prior to sampling.^.and 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." The DRC accepted the DUSA corrective
actions.
During review ofthe 4^ Quarter, 2009 groundwater monitoring report, this problernw^
identified again; therefore, DUSA was issued an April 30, 2010 NOV (Violations 3 & 4).
Because this was a repeat problem and because it appeared the December 23, 2009
commitment by DUSA was not lasting, the Executive Secretary issued DUSA a $2,997
Civil Penalty fbr the problema DUSA paid the Civil Penalty on August 23, 20lOa
)a Contrary to the requirements of the Utah Water Quality Act (UC 19^5-107) and Part LCal
and Table 2 of the Permit, DUSA failed protect to the waters of the state in that 11
contaminants have exceeded their respective GWCL in Table ! of the Permit for two
consecutive sampling events a The monitoring wells and contaminants in out-of-
compliance (hereinafter OOC) status, are shown in Tables 3 and 4 below.
May 9, 2011 Docket No. UGW11-02 Page4
Table 3. Monitoring Wells and Contaminants in OOC Status
Contaminant Monitoring Event POC Well GWCL Result
Nitrate + Nitrite (as N)
V' Qtr, 2010(2/2/2010)
2"^ Qtr, 2010 (4/22/2010) MW-26^^^ 0.62, mg/L 1.3 mg/L
2 mg/L
Nitrate + Nitrite (as N)
2"^ Qtr, 2010(5/3/2010)
3'^ Qtr, 2010(9/14/2010) MW-27 5.6 mg/L 5.8 mg/L
5.9 mg/L Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) P^Qtr, 2010(2/9/2010)
2"^ Qtr, 2010(4/27/2010) MW-30 2.5 mg/L 16.1 mg/L
15.8 mg/L
Nitrate + Nitrite (as N)
Qtr, 2010(2/9/2010)
2"^ Qtr, 2010(4/20/2010) MW-31 5 mg/L 21.7 mg/L
22.5 mg/L
Cadmium 2"^ Qtr, 2010(5/6/2010)
3'^ Qtr, 2010(9/21/2(jl0) MW-24 2.5 Mg/L 4.28 Mg/L
5.06 Mg/L
Manganese 1'^ Qtr, 2010 (2/10/2010)
2"'' Qtr, 2010 (4/28/2010) MW-11 131 Mg/L 134 Mg/L
137 Mg/L
Selenium
2"^ Qtr, 2010(4/27/2010)
3''^ Qtr, 2010(9/20/2010) MW-1(2 25 ug/L
25.7 Mg/L
31.9 Mg/L
Selenium
2"^ Qtr, 2010 (4/27/2010)
August 2010 (8/24/2010) MW-30 34 Mg/L 35.3 Mg/L
35.6 MS/L
Thallium
January 2010 (1/27/201,0)
March 2010 (3/22/2010) MW-18 1.95 Mg/L • 3.32 Mg/L
3.91|ig/L Thallium 2"^* Qtr, 2010 (5/6/2010),
Qtr, 2010(9/21/2010) MW-24 1.0 Mg/L 1.3 Mg/L
1.57 Mg/L
Uranium I'^Qtr, 2010(2/2/2010)
2"^ Qtr, 2010(4/22/2010) MW.26 41.8 Mg/L
58.7 Mg/L
66.7 Mg/L
Chloroform 1'^ Qtr, 2010 (2/2/2010)
Qtr, 2010(4/22/2010) MW-26^'^ 70 Mg/L 700 Mg/L
1,700 Mg/L
Dichloromethane July 2010(7/21/2010)
August 2010(8/16/2010) MW-26^^^ 5 Mg/L > 12 Mg/L
24 Mg/L
Chloride
2"^ Qtr, 2010(5/3/2010)
3'"'^ Qtr, 2010(9/14/2010) MW-27 38 mg/L 42 mg/L
42 mg/L Chloride 2"^^ Qtr, 2010(4/19/2010)
3'^ Qtr, 2010(9/14/2010) MW-28 105 mg/L 108 mg/L
106 mg/L
TDS Qtr, 2010 (3/15/2010)
2"^ Qtr, 2010 (5/3/2010) MW-27 1,075 mg/L 1,080 mg/L
1,160 mg/L
Footnote:
1) Monitoring well M W-26 is also a pumping well for remediation of the White Mesa chloroform plume, an action undertaken by DUSA to fulfill
the requirements of an August 23, 1999 DRC Notice of Violation and Groundwater Corrective Action Order.
Of these 10 contaminants in OOC status. Chloroform and Dichloromethane are associated
_ __,with theX^hloroform Plume, and the August 23, 1999 DRC Notice of Violation and
Groundwater Corrective Action Order (see italics in Table 3). Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) and
Chloride are associated with the Nitrate/Chloride plume, and are currently being investigated
by DUSA pursuant to a January 28, 2009 Stipulated Consent Agreement (see underlined text
in Table 3)a As a result, the Executive Secretary deems these four (4) contaminants to be
under remedial action or investigation, and hence compliant, or in the process of becoming
compliant with the requirements of Part IaGa4(c).
For the remaining six (6) contaminants in Table 3, above, DUSA has yet to comply with the
requirements of Part I.Ga4(c), by submitting a report to provide: 1) a source assessment of the
contamination, 2) an evaluation of the physical extent and dispersion ofthe contamination, and
3) an evaluation of possible remedial action options to restore and maintain groundwater
quality at the POC wells in questiona
May 9,2011 Docket No. UGWll-02 Page 5
Table 4. Monitoring Wells with Field pH in OOC Status
2"^ Qtr, 2010 (5/3/2010)
3'^* Qtr, 2010(9/20/2010) MW-3 6.5 -8.5 s.u. 6.14 s.u.
6.39 s.u.
2"^ Qtr, 2010 (5/4/2010)
3'^ Qtr, 2010 (9/21/2010) MW-3 A 6.5 - 8.5 s.u. 6.23 s.u.
6.42 $.u.
I '^Qtr, 2010 (2/2/2010)
2"^ Qtr, 2010 (4/21/2010) MW-14 6.5- 8.5 s.u. 6.46 s.u.
6.29 s.u.
Field pH March 2010 (3/22/2010)
2"^ Qtr, 2010 (5/4/2010) MW-18 6.25-8.5 s.u. 6.21 s.u.
6.20 s.u.
July 2010 (7/21/2010)
August 2010 (8/16/2010) MW-26^^^ 6.74 - 8.5 s.u. 6.45 s.u.
6.39 s.u.
2"'Qtr, 2010 (4/19/2010)
3'^ Qtr, 2010 (9/14/2010) MW-28 6.1-8.5 s.u. 5.67 s.u.
5.91 s.u.
2"^ QtF, 2010 (4/20/2010)
3'^^ Qtr, 2010 (9/13/2010) MW-32 6.4-8.5 s.u. 6.03 s.u.
6.33 s.u.
Footnote:
I) Monitoring well MW-26 is also a pumping well for remediation of the White Mesa chloroform plume, an action undertaken by DUSA to frilfill
the requirements of an August 23, 1999 DRC Notice of Violation and Groundwater Con-ective Action Ord^
DUSA is also in OOC status fdr Pield pH; however, DUSA notified the DRC in a letter dated
February 1, 2011, that explained the existing GWCL's for groundwater pH are in error due to
reliance on historical laboratory values instead of field measurements, and proposed a plan to
submit revised descriptive statistics for Field pH to be used as revised GWCL's. DUSA also
commited to submit its revised statistics and proposed GWCLs for field pH by the end ofthe
2""^ quarter of 2011, or by June 30, 2011 a Albeit it late, the Executive Secretary deems this
proposal compHes with the requirements of Part IaGa4(c) of the Permite
D, VIOLATIONS
Based on the foregoing FINDINGS OF FACT, DUSA is in violation of the following:
1. Part laEa 1(a) of the Permit and Section 6a2.7(d)(v) ofthe DUSA QAP for failing to achieve
stable turbidity conditions before collecting groundwater samples in 4 wells during the 2"^
Quarter, 2010 monitoring event.
2a Part I.E. 1(a) ofthe Permit and Section 6.2.7(d)(v) of the DUSA QAP for failing to achieve
stable turbidity conditions before Gollocting groundwater samples in J well during the-
June, 2010 accelerated monitoring event.
3. Part I.E. 1(a) ofthe Permit and Section 6.2.7(d)(v) ofthe DUSA QAP for failing to achieve
stable turbidity conditions before collecting groundwater samples in 3 wells during the
July, 2010 accelerated monitoring event.
4. Utah Water Quality Act (UC 19-5-107) and Parts I.Ca lofthe 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.
5a Part IaG.4(c) ofthe 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 reestablisheda
May 9, 2011 Docket No. UGWll-02 Page 6
E. ORDER
In view of the foregoing FINDINGS, and pursuant to Utah Code Annotated Section 19-3-108,
DUSA is hereby ordered to:
1 a Immediately initiate all actions necessary to achieve compliance with all applicable
provisions of the Utah Water Quality Act, Ground Water Quality Rules in the Utah
Administrative Code, and the Perm// (including but not limited to requirements of the
DUSA QAP).
2a Submit a report with revised statistics for Field pH, which will be used for revised
GWCLSa This report shall be submitted for Executive Secretary approval on or before
June 30, 201 la This report shall include at a minimum:
• Revised statistics to be used to revise the Permit Field pH GWCLs must be based on
the Decision Tree/Flowchart was conditionally approved by the DRC on August 24,
2007a This same Decision Tree/Flowchart was used by DUSA to calculate the
proposed GWCLs for the background groundwater quality reports dated October 2007
and April 30, 2008,
• A Complete source assessment of the contamination in wells with decreasing pH
trends,
• Evaluation ofthe physical extent and dispersion of the contamination, and
• Evaluation of possible remedial action options to restore and maintain groundwater
quality at the POC wells in questiona
3. Submit a report to the Co-Executive Secretary within 30 calendar days of receipt of this
NOV and Order to include but not be limited to the following items:
a. The root cause of the noncomphance,
b. Corrective steps taken or to be taken to prevent re-occurrence of the noncompliance,
c. Date when compliance was/or will be achieved.
4a Prepare and submit within 30 calendar days of receipt of this NOV and Order, a written
plan and time schedure,^To7^xeo^^
requirements of Part I.Ga4(c) of the Permit, including, but not limited to:
aa Submittal of a written assessment of the source(s) of the six contaminants and multiple
wells listed in Table 3, above; including: cadmium, manganese, selenium, thallium,
uranium, and total dissolved solidSa
b. Submittal of a written evaluation of the extent and potential dispersion of said
groundwater contamination,
1) Submittal of a written evaluation of any and all potential remedial action to restore
and maintain ground water quality at the facility, for the POC wells and
contaminants in question, to ensure that: 1) shallow groundwater quality at the
facility will be restored and 2) the contaminant concentrations in said POC wells
will be retumed to and maintained in compliance with their respective GWCLs. .
May 9, 2011 Docket No. UGW 11-02 Page 7
F. NOTICE
Compliance with the provisions of this NOV/CO is mandatory. Under the Division's Penalty
Criteria for Civil Settlement Negotiations, Utah Administrative Code § R317-1-8, DUSA's good
faith efforts to comply with this Compliance Order may impact the monetary penalty that eould
apply in a settlement. Providing false information may subject DUSA to further civil penalties or
criminal fines.
UCA § 19-5-115 provides that a violation of the ACT or a related order may be subject to a civil
penalty of up to $10,000 per day of violation. Under certain circumstances of willfulness or gross
negligence, violators may be fined up to $25,000 per day of violation.
G. CONTESTING THIS NOV/CO
This NOV/CO is effective immediately and shall become final unless contested in writing within
thirty (30) days after the date this NOV/CO was signed. See Utah Administrative Code § R317-9-
3(3). Any further administrative proceedings in this case shall be conducted formally under Utah
Code Ann. §§ 63G4-101 through 63G-4-601.
To contest this NOV/CO, you must respond in writing and must comply with the requirements of
the Administrative Rules of the Water Quality Board, found at Utah Administrative Code § R317-
9 and with the requirements of the Utah Administrative Procedures Act, including Utah Code
Ann. § 63-G-4-201(3)(a) and (b). Those provisions of the Utah Administrative Procedures Act
require, among other things, that you state your factual and legal reasons for disagreeing with the
Notice of Violation or Compliance Order, and that you state the action that you would like the
agency to take (e.ga, withdrawing the NOV/CO)a
A response contesting this NOV/CO must be received by the Go-Executive Secretary within 30
calendar days of receipt of this NOV/COa
(Mailing address) (Address for by-hand or overnight delivery)
Rusty Lundberg, Co-Executive Secretary Rusty Lundberg, Co-Executive Secretary
-^t^h^^ter-Quahty-Boar^——~~ --^U^^h Water-Quality^oar4~---~^--^^—
195 North 1950 West 195 North 1950 West
PaOaBox 144850 Sah Lake City UT, 84116
Sah Lake City, UT 84114-4850
You will not be allowed to contest this NOV/CO in court or in any other forum if you do not first
contest the NOV/CO as described above.
Signed this ^^M(V\ day ofMay, 2011
UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD
Rusty Lundberg
Co-Executive Secretary
May 9, 2011 Docket No. UGW 11 -02 Page 8