DRC-2009-006026 - 0901a068801476ac

,''-^^!^^^>-i.
State of Utah
JONM HUNTSMAN. JR.
Gnveninr
GARY HERBERT
Lieuteitant Governor
\\^C-9-C'C^I.~rO(^'i
Department of
Environmental Quality
Willinm J. Sinciiiir
Aciinf- Executive Diretinr
DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
Dane L. Finerrrock
Director
October 5, 2009
CERTIFIED MAIL
(Return Receipt Requested)
Mr. David Frydenlund
Vice President, Regulatory Affairs
Denison Mines (USA) Corporation (DUSA)
Independence Plaza, Suite 950
1050 17'^ Street
Denver, CO 80265
Dear Mr. Frydenlund:
Subject: Setilement Agreement and Proposed Civil Penalty for Notice of Violaiion and Order (NOV),
Docket No. UGW09-02, at the Denison Mines (USA) Corp. White Mesa Uranium Mill facility
near Blanding, ULah.
This is to acknowledge your response to the Notice of Violation and Order (hereafter "NOV"), Docket No.
UGW09-02, The response was dated February 19,2009 and received by the Division of Radiation Control
("hereafter '"DRC") on February 23, 2009. A copy of the Settlement Agreement (hereafter "SA")n and the
Proposed Civil Penalty (hereafter "PCP") calculations (based on the cited violation and your NOV response)
and penalty justification is enclosed for your review.
Two originals of the S A are also enclosed. If you wish to resolve the NOV based on the enclosed calculaiions,
please review the SA and sign both originals, do not date them, and retum them both to this office within ten
(10) calendar days of receipt. After you have retumed the signed SA, the Executive Secretary will sign and date
the SA and return one original to you. Payment then will be due within 30 days ofthe final SA document
signed by the Executive Secretary.
If you wish to meet with DRC to discuss the calculations further, please contact Dean Henderson al (801) 536-
0046. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dane L.
Direcior
DLF/dh
Enclosures: 2 copies of the SA contract and one copy PCP (memorandum)
F:\DUSA\McxJ inspections\Mod 61\NOV\coverlettcr.doc
108 North 1950 West * Salt Lake Cily, I'T
Mailing Address. P.O. Box 144850 • Sail Uke Cily, UT 84114-4850
Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • T.D.D [phone]
tv\fw.deq.uinh.t:"v
MniccI on lOO'fr recycled p:iper
J^^i.1
Proposed Civil Penalty
State of Utah
Department of
Environmental Quality
Richard W. Sprott
Arling Execuiive Director
Division of Radiation Control
Dane L. Rncrfrock
Direcior
JONM HUNTSMAN. JK.
Guvrrniir
GARY HERBERT
Lieutenant Govrrnni
MEMORANDUM
TO: Loren Morton. Section Manager
FTROM; Dean Henderson, Hydrogeologist
DATE: October 6, 2009
SUBJECTT: Proposed Penalty for Notice of Violation (hereafter "NOV") and Order to Comply (Docket
Number UGW09-02) at the Denison Mines (USA) Corp. White Mesa Uranium Mill facility
near Blanding, Utah.
This document is to evaluate a Civil Penalty for the NOV above that was issued on January 15, 2009 to
Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (hereafter "DUSA").
THE DEMEMBER 9,2008 INSPECTION
On December 9, 2008, the Utah Division of Radiation Control (hereafter "DRC") performed an inspection
and split sampling at the White Mesa Uranium Mill facility near Blanding, Utah. Based on the fmdings of
this inspection a violation was recommended to be issued for being out of compliance with Section 6.2.4(d)
of the Ground Water Monitoring Quality Assurance Plan [hereafter "QAP"] (see DRC December 30 2008
memorandum):
"Failure to measure multiple field parameters with a flow cell system that allows real time
measurements without exposure of the groundwater sample to the atmosphere."
On January 15, 2009 DRC issued an NOV to DUSA.
DUSA RESPONCE TO NOV
On February 19, 2009 DUSA responded to the NOV by explaining:
a) the root cause of the noncompliance:
• Mill environmental personnel were not aware thai use ofthe YSI-556 with Flow Cell Multi-
Parameter system or equivalent was a requirement under the QAP, where and under the
mistaken assumption that it was a recommendation rather than a requirement.
• Mill environmental staff made an attempt to order the flow cell system some time ago in
response to what they believed was a recommended course of action, but this effort was not
followed through to completion.
Pa^e 1 168 North 1950 West • HO Box 144850 • Sair Uke City, UT 84114-4850 • phone [phone] • fax [phone]
T.D.D. (W\) 536-4414 • wtvv^ deq utah.gov.
b) Steps that have been taken to correct the violation:
• DUSA acquired a YSI-556 with Flow Cell Multi-Parameter system on January 16,
2009.
• Mill environmental personnel were trained on the use of the system and advised to use
it for all field parameter measurements.
• Mill environmental personnel started using the YSI-556 with Flow Cell Multi-
Parameter system for field parameter measuj-ements on January 20, 2009.
c) Date when compliance was regained: See item b) above.
d) Steps taken to prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance:
• A YSI-556 with Flow Cell Multi-Parameter system or equivalent will continue to be
used for all field parameter measurements taken al the Mill after January 20, 2009.
• Mill environmental personnel have been trained on its use and advised that it is to be
used for all such measurements.
• In order to prevent future situations where Mill personnel are unfamiliar wiih the
requirements of the QAP, the QAP will be reviewed by the Mills environmental
coordinator and/or radiation safely officer at least once a year.
• Mill Standard Operating Procedures under the Mills Radioactive Materials License are
reviewed annually by the Mills RSO, to ensure that the QAP is up to date, that no
amendments to the QAP are necessary and that Mill personnel are aware of and
implementing requirements under the QAP.
DRC Findings
DRC accepts DUSA response to items b), c), and, d). However, the DUSA response to item a) is
unacceptable because:
1) The use of lhe flow cell system during sampling was a mandatory requirement immediately upon
DRC approval of revision 3.0 oflhe QAP on June 20, 2008, and
2) DUSA claims the problem was due lo an mistaken assumption that it was a recommendation rather
than a requirement. However, the DUSA organization bears the responsibility to road and
understand, and abide by the terms of the Permit, including the QAP as required in Part I.E. 1(a) of
the Permit.
DRC staff retommends that a civil penalty be pursued based on the following reasons:
1) DUSA had prior knowledge about the flow cell system requirement. In a May 8, 2008 DRC
Request for Additional Information and Confirmatory Action Letter (hereafter "DRC 2008"), DRC
documented a May 5, 2008 conference call with DRC and DUSA representatives, wherein all QAP
modifications outlined in DRC 2008 were discussed. Among these modifications was item 7 which
modified part of section 6.2.4(d) of the QAP with the wording: "Field parameters shall be
measured using a YSI-556 with Flow Cell Multi-Parameter Meter System or equivalent that allows
a continuous stream of water from the pump to the meter that enables measurements to be Taken on
a real-time basis without exposing the water stream to the atmosphere;". This same wording was
found of page 16 of the June 18. 2008 DUSA QAP, Revision 3.0, submitted to the DRC (later
approved on June 20, 2008). Based on the May 5, 2008 conference call, the DRC 2008 letter, and
June 18, 2008 DUSA submittal, it is clear that DUSA should have understood that the flow system
was a requirement.
2) The DRC inspection wasn't conducted until December 9, 2008 which was 141 days after the QAP
Revision 3.0 took effect (June 20, 2008). At the end of the inspection, DRC staff held a closeout
meeting with the site RSO and informed him of the sampling equipment problem. This was
sufficient time to acquire and implement use of the flow cell system. Contrary to this DUSA, didn't
initiate any action to become compHant until the problem was brought to DUSA attention during a
conference call on January 14, 2009. DUSA did not acquire, train, and use the flow cell system
equipment until January 20, 2009 (DUSA February 19, 2009 ieter).
CONCLUSIONS ON CIVIL PENALTY
It was determined that DUSA is in violation of Section 6.2.4(d) of the QAP that requires the use of a flow
cell system that allows real time measurements of field parameters without exposure of the
groundwater sample to the atmosphere.
According to R317-1-8 (Penalty Criteria for Civil Settlement Negotiations), the penalty calculation
methodology consists ofthe following formula:
CIVIL PENALTY = PENALTY -\- ADJUSTMENTS - ECONOMIC AND LEGAL CONCIDERATIONS
L Category Selection (R317-1-8.3)
Table 1 below describes the Water Quality penalty categories.
TABLE 1
Water Quality Pcaalty Categories (UAC R317-1-8.3)
Category A - $7,000 to $10,000 per day. Violations with high impact on public health and the
environment to include:
• Category A.1 - Discharges which result in documented public health effects 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 potentially cause (undocumented) public
health effects or significant environmental damage.
• Category B.2 - Creation of a serious hazard to public health of the environment.
• Category B.3 - Illegal discharges containing significant quantities of concentranons 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 ofthe Utah Water Pollution Control Act, associated
regulalions, pennits or orders to include:
• CaLegory C. 1 - Significant non-compliance of Permit effluent limits.
• Category r.3 - Substantial non-compliance with the requirements of a compliance schedule.
• Category C.3 - Substantial non-compliance with monitoring and reporting requiremenis
• Category C.4 - Illegal discharge containing significant or concentrations of non toxic on
nonhazardous materials.
• Cateeorv C.5 - Any type of violation not mentioned previously which warrants a penalty
assessment under category C.
Category D - up to S500 per day. Minor violations of the Utah Water Pollution Control Act,
associated regulations, permits or orders to include:
• Category D. 1 - Minor excursions of Pennit effluent limits
• Category D.2 - Minor violations of compliance schedule requiremenis
• Catggoi'V D.3 - Minor violations of reporting requirements
• Category D.4 - Illegal discharges not covered in Categories A, B, C.
• Calggory D.5 - Any type of violations not mentioned previously which warrants a penally
assessment under category D.
Not using the flow cell system that allows real time measurements of field parameters without
exposure of the groundwater sample to the atmosphere did no harm to human health and the
environment. Therefore, the following penalty categories do not apply:
• Category A - violations with high impact on public health and the environment. For
detaUs see Table 1 above.
• Category B - major violations of the Utah Water Pollution Control Act, associated
regulations, permits. For details see Table 1 above.
• Category C - violations of the Ulah Water Pollution Control Act, associated
regulations, permits or orders. For details see Table 1 above.
• Category D.l, 2, 3 and 4. - minor violations of the Utah Water Pollution Control Act,
associated regulations, pemiits or orders. For details see Table 1 above.
However, the violation referenced above is in violation of requirements of Section 6.2.4(d) of the QAP
and therefore fall under the penalty Category D5 (see item 2 above). For details see Table 1 above.
Category D - penalty up to $500 per dav
II- Statutory Maximum Penalty
The number of days that DUSA is considered to be oul of compliance was calculated by the sampling
days in which the flow system would have been used to measure field parameters for monitoring events
between 1) June 23, 2008, the date when QAP Revision 3 approval letter from the Executive Secretary
was received by DUSA, and 2) the January 20, 2009, the date when DUSA Mill personnel started using
the flow cell system. These monitoring events and calculated days the flow system would have been
used are summarized in Table 2 below.
Table 2
Monitoring Event
(1)3^'Quarter 2008
(I) Monthly Accelerated
(1) Monthly Accelerated
(1)4" Quarter 2008
(1) Monthly Accelerated
(2) 3" Quarter 2008
(2) 4'" Quarter 2008
Date(s)
August 4,5,6,7.8,11,12, and 13, 2008
September 8, 2008
October 13, 14, and 30. 2008
November 3,4,5,10.11,12,13, and 19, 2008
December 9, 2008
September 8,9, and 10,2008
Oclober 14,15, and 17,2008
Total Days
Number of Days
8
J
3
8
1
3
3
27
1) Monitoring event for compliance wells under the Permii.
2) Monilonng event for the chlorororm comamination investigation.
The proposed maximum penalty, therefore, would be calculated for 27 days at $500 per day is $13,500.
DRC considers the 27 days used in the penalty calculation conservative because: 1) the number of days
from the date that DUSA received the approval letter for Revision 3.0 the QAP (June 23, 2008) lo the date
that DUSA began using the flow system (January 20, 2009) was 220 days and, 2) DRC did not count the
July 9, 2008 date that an accelerated monitoring event occurred.
III. Assigned Penalty Amount within a Category
A. History of compliance or non-compliance:
With the exception of not having the necessary equipment for the flow cell system, DUSA has had a
history of being compliant with monitoring equipment as specified it the QAP. Therefore, a credit
of 100% was given for history of compliance.
B. Degree of willfulness and/or negligence:
Five factors need to be considered under the requirements of UAC R317-1-8.3(B), including:
1. How much control the violator had over the non-compliance
2. The fore seeabi lity ofthe events constituting the violation,
3. Whether the violator made or could have made reasonable efforts to prevent the violation,
4. Whether the violator knew ofthe legal requirements v^'hich were violated, and
5. Degree of recalcitrance.
Section 6.2.4(d) was a requirement in version 3.0 of the QAP that was enforce on June 20, 2008.
Therefore, DUSA:
1.
2.
3.
Had contro] over the events constituting the violation, in that the requirement to use of the flow
cell system to measure field parameters is clearly stated in section 6.2.4(d) of the QAP prior to
the ground water monitoring events.
Could have foreseen events that constituted the violation by reviewing requirements in-section
6.2.4(d) of the QAP prior to monitoring events.
Could have made reasonable efforts to prevent the violation, by acquiring the flow cell system
equipment prior to the ground water monitoring events.
4. DUSA knew of the legal/Permit/QAP requirements which were violated, in thai they are
specifically listed in Section 6.2.4(d) of the DUSA QAP, which was approved by Executive
Secretaiy on June 20, 2008.
5. To DRC knowledge, there is no indication of any recalcitrance. Therefore, a credit of 20% was
given for willfulness or negligence.
C. Good Faitii Efforts to Comply:
DUSA has shown good faith effons lo comply. DUSA has cooperated with DRC and has not
challenged the DRC findings in the NOV. In addition, as required in the NOV, DUSA responded
within 30 days of receipt of the NOV in a letter daied February ! 9, 2009 describing I) root cause of
the noncompliance, 2) steps that have been taken to coirect violations by purchasing the Hach MS
Flow Cell, 3) date when compliance was regained, and 4) steps taken to prevent reoccurrence of the
noncompliance. Therefore, a 100% ciedit for good faith efforts to comply.
IV. Penalty Calculations
Category D, which is a maximum of $500 per day penalty = $500
Credits: 1/3 (max $166.66) History of Compliance (100%credh) = ($166.66)
1/3 (max $166.66) Degree of Willfulness and/or Negligence (20% credit) = ($33.33)
1/3 (max $166.66) Good Faith Efforts to Comply (100% credit) = $166.66
Penalty perday violation = ($133.33)
Number of days of violation (see table above) = 27
Tolal Category Penalty (Gravity Component) = $3,599.91
The $3,599.91 penalty is reasonable based on:
1) The flow cell is important for accurate field analysis of more than one field parameter (pH, specific
conductance, temperature, redox potential [hereafter "Eh"], and turbidity) measured in the field
only.
2) Eh field results could be significantly altered without the use of a flow cell in the sample process.
3) The opportunity to accurately measure Eh was lost on 27 separate days.
4) Eh conditions are critical to the chloroform degradation which will support decisions made on the
chloroform contamination cleanup project. The Eh data was potentially altered for the 27 days in
question.
5) Well purging - QAP calls for stability of all field parameters within +/- iO % over at least two
consecutive measurements and two well casing volumes prior to collecting water samples. Without
the use of a flow cell, purge water would be exposed to the air; therefore biasing Eh measurements
and altering well purging volumes.
V Adjustments
According to R317-1-8.5, the civil penalty shall be calculated by adding the following adjustments to the
penalty amount determined above:
1) Economic benefit gained as a result of non-compliance:
The missing groundwater sampling equipment was a Hach MS Flow Cell, product # 014610 with
the purchase price of $200.00. The lime period used to calculate this economic benefit began with
June 20, 2008. the date the Executive Secretary approved version 3.0 of the QAP to January 20,
2009 continuing to the date thai DUSA began using the flow cell system, reported to be in January,
2009 or approximately 7 months. Based on curreni interest rates the money saved by DUSA by not
purchasing the Hach MS Flow Cell in June, 2008 would be less than $10. Therefore, the economic
benefit is n^nimal as compared to the $3,599.91 penalty calculated above and will not be considered
in the penalty amount.
2) Investigative costs incurred by the DRC and/or olher governmental levels:
Based on the degree of the violation (Category D.5), investigative costs incurred by governmental
agencies are not included.
VI. Economic and Legal Considerations
An adjustment downward may be made or a delayed payment schedule may be used based on a documented
inability of the violator to pay. Aiso, an adjustment downward may be made in consideration of the
potential for protracted litigation, an attempt to ascertain the maximum penalty the court is likely to award,
and/or the strength of the case.
Adjustments due to economic and legal considerations are not recommended in this case.
VII. Total Civil Penalty
Total Category Penalty (Gravity Component) = $3599.91
Total economic benefit gained = |0
Tolal Civil Penalty = $3599.91
References
DEQ, March 17, 2U08, State ol Utah Division of Water Quality Department of Environmental Quality Utah
WaterQuality Board SaltLakeCity, Utah 84114-4870 Ground Water Discharge Permit
DRC, July 17, 2006. Letier, Subject: Notice of Violation and Order to Provide Information - Ground Waler
monitoring and Quality .Assurance Requirements: lUC Radioactive Materials License No. UT1900479,
License Condition 11.2.C and Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit No. UGW370n04. Enclosure:
Notice of Violation and Order to Comply (Docket Number UGW06-04).
DRC. January 11, 2008. Letter. Subject: l" Quarter und 2'"^ Quarter, 2007 DUSA Groundwater Monitoring
Reports: Notice of Violation and Order, Docket No. UGW07-04. Enclosure: Notice of Violation and Order
to Comply (Docket Number UGW07-04).
DRC, February 28, 2008, Letter, Subject: 3'''' Quarter. 2007 DUSA Groundwaier Monitoring Report: Notice
of Violation and Order. Docket No. UGW08-01.
DRC, May 8, 2008, Letter, Subject: March 14, 2008 White Mesa Uranium Mill Ground Waler Monitoring
Quaiity Assurance Plan (QAP) Proposed Revision i.O. Ground Water Discharge Permit No. L'GW370004
(Permit) - Request for Additional Information and Confirmatory Action Letter.
DRC, June 10, 2008, Memorandum, Subject: Field Inspection Results for the observing of Groundwater
Monitoring Groundwater Inspection Module 61 at the Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (DUSA) White Mesa
Mill facility near Blanding, Utah.
DRC, December 30, 2008, Memorandum, Subject; Field Inspection Results for the observing of
Groundwater Monitoring Groundwater Inspection Module 61 at the Deni-son Mines (USA) Corp. (DUSA)
White Mesa Mill facility near Blanding. Utah.
DRC, January 15, 2009, Letier, Subject: Notice of Violation and Order To Provide Information - Ground
Waler Quality Discharge Permii No. UGW370004 und Ground Waiev Monitoring Quaiity Assurance Plan.
DUSA, February 21. 2008, Letter, Subject: 1'' Quarter and 2"'' Quarter. 2007 DUSA Groundwater
Monitoring Reports: Notice of Violation and Order, Docket No. UGW07-04.
DUSA, April 2, 2008. Letter, Subject: 3"^ Quarter. 2007 DUSA Groundwater Monitoring Report: Notice of
Violation and Order, Docket No. UGWOS^Ol.
Dl.^SA. June 18, 2008, White Mesa Uranium Mill Ground Water Monitoring Qualily Assurance Plan
(QAP).
DUSA, February 19, 2009, Letter, Subject: Notice of Violation and Order To Provide Information - Ground
Water Qualitv Discharge Permit No. UGW370004 and Ground Water Monitoring Qualitv .Assurance Plan
C'QAP").
lUC (now DUSA), .August 21, 2006, Letter, Subject: Notice of Violation and Order to Provide Information
- Ground Water monitoring and Quality Assurance Requirements: lUC Radioactive Materials License No.
UT1900479. License Condition 11.2.C and Ground Waler Quality Discharge Permit No. UGW370004 (the
"Permit")
Utah Division of Administrative Rules, Februaiy 1, 2009, Utah Administrative Code R17-1-8, Penalty
Criteria for Civil Settlement Negotiations
Two Copies of the Settlement Agreement
Denison Mines (USA) Corp. White Mesa Uranium Mill
Settlement Agreement, Docket No. UGW09-02SA
UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF
DENISON MINES (USA) CORP.
1050 17^" STREET, SUITE 950
DENVER, COLORADO 80265
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
DOCKET NUMBER UGW09-02SA
This SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (hereinafter "AGREEMENT") is between DENISON MINES
(USA) CORP. (hereinafier "OPERATOR") and the UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD (hereinafter
the "BOARD"), conceming violations of the Utah Water Quality Act (the Act), Utah Code Annotated
("UCA") §§]9-5-l01 to -124, and the Utah Administrative Code ("UAC") R317-1 to -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 EXECUTIVE SECRETARY of the BOARD (hereinafter the EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY") will administerthe terms and provisions of this AGREEMENT. UCA §§19-5-106
and 115.
3. This AGREEMENT resolves the violation cited in the NOTICE OF VIOLATION and ORDER,
Docket Number UGW09-02 (hereinafter the "NOTICE") issued to the OPERATOR on January 15,
2009, 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 ofthe violation in the NOTICE referenced in item 3, the OPERATOR agrees to pay a
total penalty amount of $3,599.91 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 the Division of Radiation Control, Department of Environmental Quality, 168 North 1950 West,
P.O. Box 144850, SaltLake City, Utah 84114-4850. The penalty has been determined using the
Penalty Criteria for Civil Settlement Negotiations. Utah Administrative Code ("UAC") R317-I-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.
6. The deadline stipulated in item 5 above may be amended by prior written mutual agreement of the
parties. The party requesting the amendment miist write to the other party within 14 calendar days
Page 1 of 2
Denison Mines (USA) Corp. White Mesa Uranium Mill
Settlement Agreemenl. Deckel No. UGW09-02SA
before the documented deadline and request an amendment ofthe deadline. The other party will
either agree lo or deny lhe 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 penallies 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
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY may commence a proceeding with the BOARD under the Utah
Administrative procedures Ac t, Utah Code Annotated §§63G-4- IOJ to -601 to resolve the dispute. A
final decision in any adjudicative proceeding shall be subject to judicial review under applicable state
law.
9. Nothing in this AGREEMENT shaii constitute 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 2009.
Denison Mines (USA) Corp. UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD
By By
David C. Frydenlund Dane L. Finerfrock
Vice President and Counsel Co-Executive Secretary
Denison Mines (USA) Corp
Page 2 of 2
Denison Mines (USA) Corp. White Mesa Uranium Mill
Settlement Agreemenl. Docket No. UGW09-02SA
UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF
DENISON MINES (USA) CORP.
1050 17™ STREET, SUITE 950
DENVER, COLORADO 80265
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
DOCKET NUMBER UGW09-02SA
This SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (hereinafter "AGREEMENT") is between DENISON MINES
(USA) CORP. (hereinafter "OPERATOR") and the UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD (hereinafter
the "BOARD"), conceming violations ofthe Utah Water Quality Act {l[\e Act), Utah Code Annotated
("UCA") §§19-5-101 to -124, and the Utah Administrative Code ("UAC") R317-1 to -560.
1. The BOARD has authority to administer the Utah Water Quality Act, and the Utah Administrative
Code. UCA §§19-5-106,-J 15.
2. The EXECUTIVE SECRETARY of the BOARD (hereinafter the 'EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY") will administerthe terras and provisions ofthis AGREEMENT. UCA §§19-5-106
and 115.
3. This AGREEMENT resolves the violation cited in the NOTICE OF VIOLATION arid ORDER.
Docket Number UGW09-02 (hereinafter the "NOTICE") issued to the OPERATOR on Januao' 15,
2009, 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, mle, regulation or permit by the OPERATOR.
5. In resolution ofthe violation in the NOTICE referenced in item 3, the OPERATOR agrees to pay a
total penalty amount of $3,599.91 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 the Division of Radiation Control, Department of Environmental Quality, 168 North 1950 West,
P.O. Box 144850, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4850. The penalty has been determined using the
Penalty Criteria for Civil Settlement Negotiations. Ulah Administrative 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 lo comply, and economic
benefit.
6. The deadline stipulated in ilem 5 above may be amended by prior written mutual agreement of the
parties. The party requesting the amendment must write to the other party within 14 calendar days
Page 1 of 2
Denison Mines (USA) Coip. White Mesa Uranium Mill
Settlement Agreement, Docket No. UGW09-02SA
before the documented deadline and request an amendment oflhe deadline. 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 addilional actions to
include additional penalties against the OPERATOR for permii violations not resolved by this
AGREEMENT
8. If an agreement between the OPERATOR and the EXECUTIVE SECRETARY cannol be reached in
a dispute arising under any provision of this AGREEMENT, then the OPERATOR or the
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY may commence a proceeding with lhe BOARD under the Utah
Administrative Procedures Ac t, Utah Code Annotated §§630-4-101 to-601 lo resolve the dispute. A
final decision in any adjudicative proceeding shall be subject to judicial review under applicable state
law.
9. Nothing in this AGREEMENT shall constitute a waiver by the OPERATOR to raise in defense any
legal or factual contenlion for future allegations of noncompliance.
10. Nothing iu this AGREEMENT shall constitute or be considered as a release from any clahns, 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, finn, partnership or corporation for any liability
arising oul of or relating in any way to the release of pollutants lo waters of the State.
AGREED to this day of 2009.
Denison Mines (USA) Corp. UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD
By By
David C. Frydenlund Dane L. Finerfirock
Vice President and Counsel Co-Executive Secretary
Denison Mines (USA) Corp
Page 2 of 2