DRC-2009-007023 - 0901a0688015686e

\ytc-AccAyooioyi5
DENISOIN^.
MINES
Decdember 23, 2009
VIA PDF AND FEDERAL EXPRESS
Mr. Dane L. Finerfrock
Co-Executive Secretary
Utah Water Quality Board
State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality
168 North 1950 West
P.O. Box 144850
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
1050 17th Street, Suite 950
Denver, CO 80265
USA
Tel : [phone]
Fax:[phone]
www.denisonmines.com
^O.totto
Dear Mr. Finerfrock:
Re: DUSA 1^^ Quarter 2009, Groundwater Monitoring Report:
Notice of Violation and Compliance Order, Docket No. UGW09-04
This letter is in response to the foregoing Notice of Violation (the "Notice") dated November 17, 2009,
which Denison Mines (USA) Corp. ("DUSA") received on November 23, 2009. The Notice lists four
violations (the "Violations") of the White Mesa Mill's (the "Mill's") Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit
No. UGW370004 (the "Permit"), based on a review of the Groundwater Monitoring Report for the 1^*
Quarter of 2009.
Pursuant to Utah Code Annotated 19-5-111 (1953 as amended), this letter describes:
a) the root cause of the noncompliance;
b) steps that have been or will be taken to correct the violation;
c) date when compliance was or will be regained; and
d) steps taken or to be taken to prevent re-occurrence of the noncompliance.
DUSA responds as follows:
1. Violation of Part I.E.I (a) of the Permit and Sections 6.2.2.(a) and 6.2.7(d)(v) of the DUSA QAP
for failing to measure for turbidity in wells MW-14 and MW-32 during the January 2009
monitoring event and wells MW-20 and MW-22 during the February, 2009 monitoring event.
a) Root Cause of the Noncompliance
Wells MW-14 and MW-32 were sampled for accelerated monthly purposes on January 13, 2009.
Due to the fact that the chain of custody for those samples was broken by the overnight carrier
(i.e. the sample cooler was opened while the samples were in transit) those wells required re-
sampling. The re-sampling occurred on January 20, 2009. At the time of re-sampling, the
technicians experienced problems with the turbidity meter and were unable to obtain a reading.
That information was recorded on the accompanying Field Data Worksheets. The problem with
the turbidity meter remained intermittent and recurred during the sampling of MW-20 and MW-22
on February 2, 2009. Again the problem with the meter was noted on the Field Data Worksheets
for those sampling locations. Due to these problems, another hydrolab field instrument was
ordered and the original instrument was repaired in February allowing for a backup instrument
should equipment failure occur in the future. The technicians believed that noting the equipment
failure on the Field Data Worksheets was sufficient and did not realize that a resample would be
necessary to maintain compliance with the requirements of the QAP. The root cause of the
violation was the fact that the sampling technicians failed to re-sample as a result of their inability
to obtain turbidity readings and their belief that noting the equipment failure was sufficient.
b) Steps That Have Been Taken to Correct the Violation
i. Sampling technicians have been advised that all required field data must be obtained
when samples are collected and that if an equipment failure should occur with the field
instrumentation during sample collection, re-sampling will be necessary.
ii. A second hydrolab field instrument has been purchased and the original instrument has
been repaired, allowing for a backup instrument should this problem re-occur in the
future.
iii. All technicians are required to read the QAP annually and as necessary in order to
follow the QAP requirements.
c) Date When Compliance Was or Will be Regained
The hydrolab unit was repaired and the additional field instrument obtained in March, 2009.
d) Steps Taken to Prevent Re-occurrence of the Noncompliance
The steps outlined in 1 .b) above have been taken.
2. Violation of Part I.E.1(a) of the Permit and Section 6.2.7(d)(v) of the DUSA QAP for falling to
achieve stable turbidity conditions before collecting groundwater samples in 17 wells during
the February and March, 2009 monitoring events
a) Root Cause of the Noncompliance
The sampling technicians failed to fully understand the QAP requirement at Section 6.2.7.(d)(v)
of the QAP. The technicians believed that if the well yields 2 casing volumes (Section
6.2.7.(d)(vi) of the QAP) or if stable parameters are obtained in accordance with Section
6.2.7.(d)(v), then a sample can be collected. The technicians did not understand that regardless
of the fact that 2 casing volumes have been evacuated, Section 6.2.7.(d)(v) requires that field
parameters must also fall within a 10% range prior to the collection of samples. As a result, the
technicians in some instances evacuated 2 casing volumes but did not achieve stable turbidity
conditions for the referenced samples in the February and March, 2009 monitoring events. In
addition, and because some of these wells were both insufficiently purged and also did not meet
stable parameters, sampling technicians were not diligent in adhering to the overall purging
requirements.
b) Steps That Have Been Taken to Correct the Violation
The following steps have been taken to correct the violation:
i. Sample technicians have been re-apprised of the requirements at Sections 6.2.7.(d)(v)
and 6.2.7.(d)(vi) of the QAP that 2 casing volumes must be evacuated and that stable
field parameters must be observed prior to sampling.
ii. The QA manager has initiated an early review process for Field Data Worksheets relative
to well evacuation volumes and field parameters. This review step will occur as soon as
possible after sampling has occurred, and in time for re-sampling should purging steps
fail to comply with QAP requirements.
iii. As an element of quarterly reporting, the QA manager has initiated a documented review
of quarterly samples for evacuation volume and field parameter stability which has been
included in the 3 ^ Quarter, 2009 Groundwater Monitoring Report.
DENISONi/i
MINES
iv. All technicians are required to read the QAP annually and as necessary in order to follow
the QAP requirements.
c) Date When Compliance Was or Will be Regained
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.
d) Steps Taken to Prevent Re-occurrence of the Noncompliance
The steps described under item 2.b) above have been taken.
Violation of Part IE.1(a) of the Permit and Section 6.2.7.(d)(v) of the DUSA QAP for failing to
evacuate two casing volumes before collecting groundwater samples in 13 wells during the
January, February, and March 2009 monitoring events.
a) Root Cause of the Noncompliance
The sampling technicians failed to fully understand the QAP requirement at Section 6.2.7.(d)(v)
of the QAP. The technicians believed that if stable parameters are obtained (Section 6.2.7.(d)(v)
of the QAP) or if the well yields 2 casing volumes (Section 6.2.7.(d)(vi) of the QAP), then a
sample can be collected. The technicians did not understand that regardless of the fact that
stable field parameters are indicated, Section 6.2.7.(d)(vi) requires that at least two casing
volumes must also be evacuated. In addition, because some of these wells were both
insufficiently purged and also did not meet stable parameters, sampling technicians were not
diligent in adhering to the overall purging requirements.
b) Steps That Have Been Taken to Correct the Violation
The following steps have been taken to correct the violation:
i. Sample technicians have been re-apprised of the requirements at Sections 6.2.7.(d)(v)
and 6.2.7.(d)(vi) of the QAP that 2 casing volumes must be evacuated and that stable
field parameters must be observed prior to sampling.
ii. The QA manager has initiated an early review process for Field Data Worksheets relative
to well evacuation volumes and field parameters. This review step will occur as soon as
possible after sampling has occurred, and in time for re-sampling should purging steps
fail to comply with QAP requirements.
iii. As an element of quarterly reporting, the QA manager has initiated a documented review
of quarterly samples for evacuation volume and field parameter stability which has been
included in the 3 ^ Quarter, 2009 Chloroform Monitoring Report.
iv. All technicians are required to read the QAP annually and as necessary in order to follow
the QAP requirements.
c) Date When Compliance Was or Will be Regained
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.
d) Steps Taken to Prevent Re-occurrence of the Noncompliance
The steps described under 3.b) above have been taken.
DENISOr/^i
MINES
4. Violation of Part IE.1(a) of the Permit and Section 9.1.3 of the DUSA QAP for failing to provide
any comparison of March, 2009 Trip Blank results to original sample results for multiple
volatile organic compounds.
a) Root Cause of the Noncompliance
Due to an instrument malfunction at the Mill's contract laboratory, the trip blank was not analyzed
and thus no result could be reported. The laboratory did not inform Denison that a trip blank
instrument failure had occurred, other than the information conveyed within the final Analytical
Report Case Narrative. Further, the QA Manager was not diligent in his review of the analytical
results. Since the samples had all been collected and the laboratory did not inform Denison that
there had been a problem until the analytical report was received subsequent to the quarter's
end, there was no opportunity to re-sample with a new trip blank included for the 1^* Quarter,
2009.
b) Steps That Have Been Taken to Correct the Violation
The following steps have been taken to correct the violation:
i. Sampling technicians have initiated early quarterly sampling as a result of prior problems
with temperature and sample custody during shipping. This practice enables early
detection of sample problems.
ii. The laboratory has been informed that trip blank results must be made available to
DUSA well before the quarter's end in order to accommodate a re-sampling should the
Trip Blank fail to be analyzed.
iii. The QA Manager has been reminded of the need to carefully review the analytical
results to ensure that the results for all required QA samples are included.
c) Date When Compliance Was or Will be Regained
Laboratory notification pertaining to Section 4.b)ii above has occurred contemporaneous with the
transmission of this response.
d) Steps Taken to Prevent Re-occurrence of the Noncompliance
The steps described under 4.b) above have been taken.
If you have any questions or require any further information, please contact the undersigned.
Yours very truly,
DENIS0M MiN£S (USA) CORP
'C. Frydenlund
Vice President, Regulatory Affairs and Counsel
cc: Ron F. Hochstein
Harold R. Roberts
Steven D. Landau
David E. Turk
DENISOI^i
MINES