DRC-2009-006106 - 0901a06880147b78

State of Utah
GARY R HERBERT
GREG BELL
Lk'uU-nniil Govfrnor
Department of
Environmental Quality
Amanda Smith
Cxerutivc Din-i'i'if
Dr\'lS10N OF RADI.-\T10N CONTROL
Dane L. Finerfrock
DirccWr
t)^C~ ^OO^t - OClylOi^
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM;
DATE:
SOB/ECT:
Loren Morion
Phil Goble P(i^
September 29, 2009
DUSA"s May 22, 2009 response to NOV (Docket Number L^GW()9-()4)
Groundwater Discharge Pemiit (PeiTuii) UG370004
Denison Mines (USA) Corporation (DUSA)
While Mesa Mill, Blanding, Utah
This is a review of DUSA's May 22. 2009 submitted response to the NOV, Docket Number UGW09-04.
DUSA received the NOV on April 23. 2009 and responded to the DRC on May 22, 2009. No request of a
hearing before the BOARD was mentioned within the submittal. This review is based on the criteria
outlined under the Order:
a) The root cause ofthe noncompliance,
b) Steps that have been or will be taken to correct the violations,
c) Date when compliance was or will be regained, and
d) Steps taken or to be taken lo prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance.
Each DUSA response is in italics below, followed by a DRC finding.
VIOLATIONS
1. Violation of Part I.F.I ofthe Pennit for failing to report all well monitoring and samples
collected, including a result for TDS in well MW-25 in the 4'*' Quarter, 2008 Report, for the
November 2008 monitoring event.
a) The root cause of the noncompliance:
TD.S was .sampled in well MW-25 on November 10, 2008 dtiring rhe period of time ihat the fourth
quarter samples ^^ere Uikcnfor all POC wells at the site. These samples were sent to the Mill's
independent analytical laboratory for analysis. The laboratoty advised Mill staff that, due to
inadvertence on the part ofthe laboralory, TDS in MW-25 was not analyzed within dte 7-day
holding lime reqidred under Method A2540C. .\s a result ofthis inforniation. Mill staff re-sampled
MW-25 for TDS on November 19, 200S. This seeond sample was analyzed hy the analytical
K)K North 1'),">() West • SLIIL Lake Cily. t.IT
Maiiing Address: P.O. iSo\ 144850-Salt Lite Citv. I;T WIM-IS50
Telephone iSni) 536-4:50* Fax (801 J,'^3:^-40')'' -T.D.D (^0| j 5.30 4414
11 ll \\-.lil:l).)illlll.y^li\-
IVinicil (in lOO'V rtL-^i.-led pjpci
Page 2
laboratory and rhe analytical results were reported in a report dated December I, 2008 that was
sent to Mill staff. Tlie analytical resutts for the remainder ofthe constituents in all wells, absent
TDS in MW-25, were reported by the laboratory in a report dated December 31, 2008, that was
sent to Mill staff and to DUSA corporate environmental persomiel.
In previous periods, this problem would most likely have been identified too late in the quarter, or
after the end ofthe quarter, and there would not have been sufficient time to remedy the problem.
In this particular circumstance, however, the original samples were taken early in the quarter, the
problem was identified immediately hy the laboratory and the laboratory advised Mill staff
immediately. This aUowed Mill staff to resample in enough time to obtain rhe residts and lo have
the second .set of results analyzed all within the quarter, as reqidred by die Pemut. All ofthis
worked according to the revised procedures implemented bv DUSA in respon.se to previous
violations. However, in this particular circumstance, lhe following factors led to the re-sampled
TDS results not being included in the 4'^ Quarter 2008 Groundwater Monitoring Report:
ii) The quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Reports are prepared by Denver corporate
environmental personnel;
(ii) Denver corporate environmental personnel were not aware that there had been a holding
time e.Kceedance for TDS in MW-25 and that MW-25 had been re-sampled. This was due to
two factors:
• Tiie analytical laboratory apparently emailed the re-sampled results to Denver
corporate environmenial staff as well as to Mill staff, hut this communication does not
appear lo have been received by Denver staff, due to problems with DUSA's email
.system at the time; and
• Mill staff either did not bring this re-sampling to the attention of Denver corporate
environmental staff or did so in a manner that did not result in a proper
comnumicalion to such staff, with the result that Denver staff was nol made aware of
the re-sampling;
(iii) The analytical results for the re-.saniple were not included in the analytical report for all
ofthe other constituents and other wells, even though that repori was dated 30 days later
(December 31, 2008) than the analytical report for the re-sampled results for TDS in MW-
25 (December 1, 2008);
(iv) Denver corporate environmental staff was nol aware of or on the lookout for this problem
when reviewing the December 31, 2008 analytical report, and did not notice that TDS was
not reported for MW-25 in that repon;
(v) Denver corporate environmental personnel did not adequately check to verify that all
constituents in all wells had been reported in the December 31, 2009 analytical report;
and
(vi) Denver corporate environmental personnel did not adequately review the Field Data
Worksheets for the 4"' Quaner 2008 sampling event, which indicated that MW-25 had been
re-sampled. A proper review of those Worksheets would likely have alerted staff that
something unusual had occurred. This would have prompted Denver staff to ask fiirther
questions that would have brought this mailer to their attention.
b) Steps that have been or will be taken to correct the violations:
The following steps have been taken to correct the violation:
(i) Mill staff have been instructed to advise Denver corf>orate environmental staff in writing,
l)y email or otherwise, of any re-sampling required a! she Mill;
Page 3
(ii) Denver corporate environmental staff has been advised to contact MUI staff prior to
preparation of quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Repons to determine if there had been
any re-.<;ampling or other unusual sampling or analytical issues during the period;
(iii) Denver corporate environmental staff has been reminded oflhe need to carefully review
the analytical results to ensure that the results include results for each con.stituent in all
wells required to he sampled during the reporling period;
(iv) Denver corporate environmental staff has been reminded to review the Field Data
Worksheets carefidly to ensure that they contain the required indonnaiion (sic) arid do not
indicate any problem areas that require fiirther review; and
(v) DUSA is reviewing and revising the checklists it employs when preparing its quaneriy
Groundwater Monitoring Reports to ensure that ihey include the items in (ii), (iii) and (iv)
above as well as all other pertinent matters, including matters identified in the responses
below in connection with the other nvo violations cited in the Notice.
c) Date when compliance was or will be regained:
The steps referred to in items c)(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) above have been completed and will be
implemented commencing with the 2'"^ Quarter 2009 Groundwater Monitoring Report. DUSA will
complete the review of ils checklists, referred to in item c)(v) above, for implementation in
coimection with the 3' Quarter 2009 Groimdwater Monitoring Report.
d) Steps taken or to be taken to prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance:
TJie five steps listed in items c)(i) to c)(v) above are intended to prevent reoccurrence ofthis
noncompliance.
DRC Findings to Violation 1:
Violation No.l still stands, in thai lhe 4* Quarter. 2008 Report failed to include the laboratory results
for the compliance sample in question. 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. In a July 25, 2008 DRC Notice of Enforcement Discretion
(NOED) Letter, DUSA was cited for failing lo report TFIF results in well MW-26 for two monitoring
events in January and February, 2008 where samples were collected, analyzed, and not reported in the
r' Quarter, 2008 Groundwater Monitoring Report. Therefore, a proposed civil penalty has been
calculated by DRC staff, which is attached to this memo.
2. Violation of Parts I.E.I (a) and 11. A of the Permit and Sections of 7.2,9.3(d), and 11 of the DUSA
QAP for failing to provide a chain of custody for the July and September 2008 monitoring
events.
a) The root cause ofthe noncompliance:
All ofthe proper chain of custody fonns were provided to the analytical laboratory, and copies of
those fomis were included with the laboratory's analytical reports. Denver corporate
environmental personnel inadvenently did not include the subject chain of custody fonns with the
copy ofthe analytical repon included in the 3"' Quarter 2008 Groundwater Monitoring Report
filed prior lo December I, 2008.
This omission was brought to DUSA's attention on March 30. 2009, and DUSA provided the chain
of custody fomis to Division ofRadiation Control staff'by email on March 3 J, 2009. However, the
Page 4
email senl to Division of Radiation Control Staff on March 31, 2009 was apparently not received,
and upon request on April 8. 2009. the informalion was resent and receipt was confimied.
The root cause ofthis noncompliance is therefore inadvertence on lhe part of Denver corporate
environmental staff in preparing the 3'"^ Quaner 2008 Groundwater Monitoring Report.
b) Steps thai have been or will be taken to correct the violations:
Denver corporate environmental staff has been retninded ofthe need to carefidly check to ensure
that all required chain of custody forms are included in the quarterly Groundwaier Monitoring
Reports.
In addition, as mentioned above, DUSA is reviewing and revising the checklists it employs when
preparing iis quarterly Groundwaier Monitoring Repons to ensure that ihey include all peninent
matters, including lhe requirement to verify ihal all required chain of custody fomis are included
in quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Repons.
c) Date when compliance was or will be regained:
Denver corporate environmental staff has been reminded lo verify that the 2'" Quarter
Groundwater Monitoring Report will contain all required chain of custody fonns. Therefore,
compliance will be regained as ofthe date of that reporl.
As menlioned above, DUSA will complete its review ofthe checklists it etnploys when preparing its
quarterly Groundwater Reports, for implementation in connection wilh the 3'^ Qua?ter 2009
Groundwater Monitoring Report.
d) Steps taken or to be taken to prevent reoccurrence oflhe noncompliance:
The steps described in item c) above are intended lo prevent reoccurrence ofthis noncompliance.
DRC Findings to Violation 2:
Violaiion No. 2 still stands in that chain of custody records were not provided in the 3"* Quarter, 2008
Report. Afler considering lhe Executive Secretary's possible enforcement options, the DRC staff
recommends no penalty at this time on the basis that this was the first time this problem has been cited.
However, should these violations be repeated in the future a penalty may be assessed.
3. Violation of Pari I.E.I (a) of the Permit and Section 11 of the DUSA QAP for creating Water
Table Contour Maps in the 3"^ and 4^" Quarter^ 2008 Reports with elevation data that was not
contemporaneous, i.e. collected with a time difference that was greater than five calendar days.
a) The root cause of the noncompliance:
Historically, the Permit required that the Water Table Contour Maps include dala for all wells that
had been collected during the relevant quaner. Part I.F.I.e) ofthe Permit required that each
quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report include a Water Tablc'Conlour Map "which provides
the localion and identity of all wells sampled that quarter, the measured groundwaier elevation at
each well measured infect above mean sea levei and isocontour lines to delineate groundwater
fiow directions obsen'ed during the quarterly sampUng event."
The Mill's Ground Warer Monitoring Qiialit}- Assurance Plan (Q/\P) had simply required thai each
quarterly report include a "wafer contour map."
Pa^e 5 'o
Based on these requiremenis. water [evel measurements were collected for each well at the time
the well was .sampled. For compliance monilonng utider the Pennit. this sampUng was typically
perfonned over two or more weeks, to ensure that .samples were collected during the beginning of
the week so that they could be received at the analytical laboratoty prior to the weekend. Tliis
manner of sampling and sending Jesuits lo the laboratory was developed in order to ensure
compliance with the sample temperature requirements. DUSA found that when .samples were
received by lhe laboralon,' on the weekend, thev were more Ukely to violate the sample temperature
requirements. Because oflhe number of compliance wells .sampled, it wa.s not possible to perfonn
all ofthe sampling in the beginning of one week. The satJipling had to be spread oul over more
than one week.
Chloroform sampling has Typically been completed at a different time during each quarter than the
compUance well sampling, and water level results for chloroform welis were collected at the time
those wells were sampled. Similarly, waler levels in the piezometers and in MW-20 and MW-22,
were typically collected at yet another time during the quarter.
Tlie Mill had therefore developed practices that resulted in all required samples being taken fbr
compliance nioniloring and chloroform well monitoring during the quarter, and that resulted in
the collection of water level data during the quarter. Tliis waler level data, which had been
collected at various times during the quarter, was then used to compile the Waler Contour Map for
the quarter.
The requiremenis of Section 11 ofthe QAP were changed in fiine. 2008, such that each quaneriy
report was required to contain "A Water Table Contour Map showing groundwater elevation data
for the quaner will be contemporaneous for all wells on site, nor ro exceed a ma.ximum lime
difference of five calendar days."
It appears thai this change was agreed to by Denver corporate environmental staff'and without a
fidi understanding by such staff and Mill staff that this new requirement would require a change in
the manner in which water level measurements are to be taken by Mill staff', ll is not clear that Mill
.staff was made aware of or fiilly understood these new requirements, because Mill personnel did
not change their historic sampling and water level measuremenl practices afler fune 2008. Mill
staff continued to take water level measurements at the time of sampling, as it had done in the past,
which measurements were not taken wiihin afive-dav period, as required hy the revised provisions
ofthe QAP.
The root cause of ihis noncompliance is therefore a miscommunicaiion betvveen Denver corporate
environmental personnel and Mill staff as to this change to Section 1J oflhe QAP.
b) Steps that have been or will be taken to correct the violations:
Tiic foliowing .steps have been taken lo correcl tiie violation:
(i) Denver corporate environmental personnel have been reminded to make sure that Mill staff arc
aware of and provide their input into any changes in the QAP that involve changes to field
practices carried out by MUU personnel;
(ii) Mill personnel have been reminded to review carefully draft changes to the QAP that arc
provided to them by Denver coqyorate environmental personnel to: (A), make .sure ihey are in
agreement that any such changes are practicable from an implementation perspective; and (B)
make sure that any such changes are implemented in die field; and
(iii) Starting with the 2nd Quarter of 2009, Mill personnel wUl conduct a .separate campaign to
lake water measurements from all required wells and piezometers independently of sampling, lo
ensure liiai all such water level measurements are obtained wiihin tiie required five-diiy period.
Page 6
// .should be noted tiiat the steps set out in (iii) above will require that additional resources be
applied by the Mill lo perform a separate round of water level measurements. DUSA is evaluating
tiie costs involved in doing this against the appropriateness of .setting a five-day window for taking
the waler level measurements. In doing this evaluation, DUSA wdl consider the rates of water
fiow, the historic variations in water levels over time and tiie impacts of certain pumping wells to
detennine if the five-day window is appropriate or ifa window of a different duration may be
appropriate. However, imtil DUSA completes .such an evalualion and rite Execurive Secretary
agrees to a different measurement window, DUSA will ensure tiiat water level measurements are
taken within a five-day period eacii quarter for purposes of compiling liie Water Contour Map for
tiie quarter.
c) Date when compliance was or will be regained:
Compliance will be achieved commencing with the water level measurements taken during the 2"
quarter of 2009, as reported in tiie 2'"^ Quaner 2009 Groundwater Monitoring Report that is
required lo he filed on or before Sepieml^er I, 2009. DUSA notes thai diese new practices will not
have been perfonned for tlie T' Quaner of 2009, and hence the Water Table Contour Map
contained in tiie Groundwater Monitoring Reporr for tiiat quarter will not be iti compliance with
the requirements of Section 11 of tiie QAP.
d) Steps taken or to be taken to prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance:
Mill staff has been instructed to ciiange its practices to require tiiat water level measurements be
taken independently of water quality .samples and wiihin a five day period each quaner.
DRC Findings to Violations 3:
Violation No. 3 still stands, because the waler table contour maps submitled were not prepared using
contemporaneous water level data, i.e., data collected wiihin a consecutive 5 day period. After
considering the E.xeculive Secretary's possible enforcement options, the DRC staff recommends no
penalty at this time oh the basis that this was the first time this problem has been cited. However,
should these violations be repealed in the future a penalty may be assessed.