DRC-2010-001964 - 0901a0688016b605

.'•:C'^JS^;:
State of Utah
GARY R. HERBERT
Governor
GREG BELL
Lieutenant Governor
Department of
Environmental Quality
Amanda Smith
Executive Director
DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
Dane L. Finerfrock
Director
February 17, 2010
CERTIFIED MAIL
(Return Receipt Requested)
Mr. David C Frydenlund
Vice President and General Counsel
Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (DUSA)
1050 Seventeenth St. Suite 950
Denver, Colorado, 80265
Subject: Review of the White Mesa Uranium Mill Chloroform Monitoring Report 3'^'' Quarter (July
through September) 2009, Denison Mines (USA) Corp. Notice of Enforcement Discretion,
Recommendation and Closeout Letter.
Dear Mr. Frydenlund:
The Division of Radiation Control (hereafter "DRC") has finished the review of the White Mesa Uranium
Mill Chloroform Monitoring Report 3"* Quarter (July through September) 2009 (hereafter "Report"). This
review found there to be four violations (listed below) of the White Mesa Uranium Mill Ground Water
Monitoring Quality Assurance Plan (hereafter "QAP").
Repeat Violations for the Chloroform Monitoring Report S*^** Quarter (July througli September)
2009
1. Section 6.2.5 of the Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (hereafter "DUSA") QAP, for failing to completely
follow all decontamination procedures for sampling equipment in the 3'^'' quarter chloroform
monitoring event. This is a repeat violation cited previously in a November 10, 2009 NOV (Violation
No. 1).
2. Section 6.2.7(e) of the DUSA QAP, for failing to follow purging procedures before sampling well
TW4-14 in the 3"* Quarter chloroform monitoring event. This is a repeat violation cited previously in a
November 10, 2009 NOV (Violation No. 2).
3. Section 6.2.7(d)(v) of the DUSA QAP, for failing to make and record multiple field measurements to
demonstrate parameter stability before water quality sample collection in 21 monitoring wells for the
3''' Quarter 2009 chloroform monitoring event. This is a repeat violation cited previously in a
November 10, 2009 NOV (Violation No. 3)
Notice of Enforcement Discretion
The three violations identified above are repeat violations that were cited previously in the November 10,
168 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, UT
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144850 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850
Telephone [phone]-Fax [phone]-T.D.D. [phone]
svww. deq.utah.fiov
Printed on 1009!' recycled paper
Page 2
2009 Notice of Violation and Compliance Order Docket No. UGW09-05 (hereafter "NOV"). This
November 2009 NOV was based on DRC findings from the 3'''' quarter 2008,4* quarter 2008, and 1"
quarter 2009 chloroform monitoring reports. On December 14, 2009 DUSA responded to explain how
they would resolve the violations listed in the November 2009 NOV and implement corrective actions
effective with the 4"^ Quarter, 2009 Report. In a letter dated January 6, 2010 DRC accepted DUSA
response to resolve all violations Hsted in the NOV. Since, the three violations identified above happed
before the 4* Quarter 2009 monitoring period and DUSA did not have the opportunity to resolve the repeat
violations identified in the 3"* quarter 2009 monitoring event DRC will use enforcement discretion
regarding the repeat violations identified in items 1, 2, and 3 above.
Based on the review of the DUSA letter DRC agrees with the following for each of the three repeat
violations, including: 1) the stated root causes, 2) steps that have been or will be taken to correct the
violations, and 3) steps taken to prevent reoccurrence of the violations. Therefore, DRC accepts the DUSA
December 14, 2009 letter that outlines a plan by which DUSA will prevent the problems identified and
retum to compliance effective with the 4* quarter, 2009 chloroform monitoring report. The DRC expects
that DUSA's actions in this regard will be lasting.
Recommendation
Section 9.1.4(a) ofthe DUSA QAP requires that, for the chloride analytical result comparison between the
sample for TW4-8 and its duplicate sample, TW4-70, have.a relative percent difference (hereafter "RPD")
< 20% in the 3"* Quarter 2009 monitoring event (see the table below). Further, the reported RPD value
(31.58 %) was in error, and should have been 51.4%.
Parameter TW4-8 TW4-70 (Duplicate RPD
sample of TW4-8)
Chloride (mg/L) 44 26 51.4
In future reports, when DUSA submits an original and duplicate sample to the DRC, please ensure all RPD
calculation are correct, and that corrective action is taken as required in section 10 of the QAP when RPD
values are greater than of equal to 20%.
This letter constitutes a closeout for the review of the White Mesa Uranium Mill Chloroform Monitoring
Report for the 3''' Quarter (July through September) 2009. Thank you for cooperating in this matter.
UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD
Dane L. Fineorock
Co-Executive Secretary
DLF/DH