DRC-2010-002822 - 0901a0688017c8b0

State of Utah
(iAKY R. HERBERT
Goi-i-niiT
GREG BELL
Licuieiiuni Governor
April 20, 2010
Department of
Environmenlal Quality
Aiiirinda Smith
ELxeruiive Direnor
OrV ISION OF RADI.ATION CONTROL
Diine L. Fincrfnx.-k m
o
[T
CT
P-
O
CD O
•
o
r-=l
•
•
U.S. Postal Service M
CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT
(Domestic Mail Orr/y; No Insurance Coverage Provided}
For delivery informalion visit our website at wvw.usps.comn.
mr Postage
Cenlhcd Fes
Return Recelp[ Fee
(Endor^rTiont aa'...-.— .^\
^]m.A)
, ,P03tmarit^
Rea
(Endt-"E'JtrT ip.-., crj-.j ^TH :.ij.ti;iEt^. ."HLM |FEEIP'J.^P'I •.'uUi C-ROLIND'-VATER
^••Jr^l^.-.RlrJ,-. rcr-lRT fjl'Tii.EOF .'rJL.^ I|UN AND •_; uPli.^rJCE irDEF'
•J .'l I t^r rjt.i I,--,-, iij, ,,j
Toti
WF D.'i .IL' •_ t^h'Tr,EML"NEi
•
E npE - ipcn r iH[' i"EMEPtL'a.iNvFL
•3f;-e^'£'li:jri|MiriF-:ri.iv.^,._'>P|[" -.i,
or PC" '^^
lif?'.' :"E tfjrEEnTH :-T
City, C Erc'ER
or PC" '^^
lif?'.' :"E tfjrEEnTH :-T
City, C Erc'ER
rs f urm •JSOO Aiiqus: 2Cll}t' -.'(••'ifrlJClion.'; ,
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: DUSA 4"' Quarter. 2009 (February 28. 2010). Groundwater Monitoring Report: Notice of
Violation and Compliance Order, Docket No. LIGWlO-03
Dear Mr. Frydenlund:
The enclosed Notice of Violation and Compliance Order ("NOV/CO'") is based on Division of Radiation
Control (DRC) findings from the review of the DUSA. 4^'^ Quarter, 2009 Groundwater Monitoring Report
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 ofthis NOTICE. This order is
fully enforceable unle.s.s appealed in writing within 30 days, as described in the "Notice" section of
this NOV/CO. Any response or written answer to this NOV/CO should be addressed to Dane L.
Finerfrock, Co-Executive Secretary, Utah Water Quality Board, 168 North 1950 West, P.O. Box
144850, Salt Lake Citv, Utah 84114-4850.
UTAH WATER QU-\L1TY BOARD
Dane L. Finerfroclc j
Co-Executive Secretar>'
Enclosure: Notice of Violation and Order. Docket No. UGWIO-03
IbSNoith 1950 West» Sail Lake City. UT
Mailing .J^ddre^s: F.O. Bo\ I443.SU • Sdlt Lake Cil.v. MT S4ll4-4t450
Telephone (801) ??0-4250 • Fa>L 18011 33.1 40M7 • T.D.D. [phone]
Primed on lOOT rrcyijled p;iper
UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
1050 SEVENTEENTH ST. SUITE 950
DENVER, COLORADO, 80265
DOCKET NUMBER UGWlO-03
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.
§i5 19-5-101 to 19-5-123 (the ACT), including sections 19-5-104, 19-5-106, 19-5-111 and-19-5-
! 15. This NOV/CO is also issued in accordance with the Utah Administrative Piocedures Act.
Utah Code Ann. §§ 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) ofthe Utah Code.
B. APPLICABLE STATUTORY AND REGULATORY PROVISIONS
L DUSA was issued Ground Water Quality Discharge Pennit No. UGW3700O4 (hereinafter
Permit) on March 8, 2005. Said Pennit was modified by the Co-Executive Secretary on
March 17, 2008, and last modified on January 20, 2010.
2. I.E.Ifa) of the Permit requires that "...all sampling shall be conducted to ensure collection
of lhe representative samples, ami reliability and validity of groundwater m(mi.toring data.
All groundwater sampling shall be conducted in accordance with the currently approved
Groundwater Monitoring Quality Assurance Plan. "
Part LF. 1 of the Permit requires that "...the Pertnittee shall submit quarterly monitoring
reports of field and laboratory analyses of all well monitoring and samples described in
Parts I.E.}, l.E.2. I.E.3, I.E.5, and I.E.? of this Permit for E.\ecutive Secretary review and
approval. Reports shall be subtnitted according to the following schedule:
Table 6. Groundwater Monitoring Reporting Schedule
Quarter Period Due Dale
First Jamiar\ - March June J
Second April - June September 1
Third July - September December I
Fourth October - December March I
Part I.F.l(d) requires that each groundwater monitoring report include "...a written
description and findings of all quality assurance and data validation efforts conducted by
the Pennittee in compliance with the Groundwater Monitoring Quality Assurance Plan.
Said report shall verifv the accuracy and reliability ofthe groundwater quality compliance
data, after evaluation of sample collection techniques and equipment, sample handling
and presentation, anal\tical methods used, etc."
April 20. 2010 Docket No. UGWIO-03 Page
5. Part l.F.l(e) ofthe Permit requires that "...with each quarterly ground waier monitoring
report the Pennittee shall fidly and completely disclose all non-confonnonce with
requirements ofthe currently approved QAP, mandated by Part I.E.I(a). "
6. Part n.A of the Permit requires that ..Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring
requirements established under Part f shall be representative of the monitored activity. "
7. The DUSA Quality Assurance Plan (hereinafter DUSA QAP) was originally dated.
November 17. 2006, (Revision LO): and was approved by the Co-Executive Secretary on
December 1, 2006. The DUSA QAP was later revised by DUSA on November 18^ 2008,
and subsequently approved by the Co-Executive Secretary on Mai'ch 30, 2009. Most
recently DUSA proposed another revision to the DUSA QAP, dated Febmary 22, 2010
(Revision 5.0) which was approved by the Co-Executive Secretary on February 23, 2010.
8. Section 3.1 of the DUSA QAP, requires that "Precision is defined as the measure of
variability that exists between individual sample measurements ofthe same property under
identical conditions. Precision is measured through the analysis of samples containing
identical cojicentraiions of the parameters of concem. For duplicate measurements,
precision is expressed as the relative percent difference ("RPD") of a data pair and will
he calculated by the following equation:
RPD = [(A-B)/l(A+B)/2Jj x 100
Where A (original) and B (duplicate) are the reported concentration for field duplicate
samples analyses (or, in the case of analyses perfonned by the Analytical Laboratory, the
percent recoveries for matnx spike and matrix spike duplicate samples) (EPA S'W-846,
Chapter I, Section 5.0, page 28)."
9. Section 4.3.3 of the DUSA QAP, requires that: "One Duplicate set of samples .submitted
wirh each Batch (defined in Section 4.3.4) of samples (DTG, Field and Laboratory Quality
Assurance/Qualiry Control, 7.8), taken from one ofthe wells being sampled and will be
submitted to the Analytical Laboratory and analyzed for all contaminants listed in Table 2
ofthe GWDP..."
10. Section 6.2.7(d)(v) ofthe DUSA QAP, requires that DUSA: "Take measurements of 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 Worksheet. Purging is compleled after
nvo casing volumes have been removed and the field parameters pH, temperature, specific
ccmductance. redox potential (Eh) and Turbidity have stabilized to within 10% over at least
two consecutive measurements. The groundwater in the well should recover to within at
least 907o ofthe measured groundwater static surface before sampling. In addition,
turbidity measurement in the waier should be < 5 NTU prior to sampling (DTG Well
Development 6.7, page 6-48) unless the well is characterized by water that has a higher
turbidity. A flow-cell needs to be used for field parameters. If the well is purged to dtyness
or is purged such that full recovery exceeds nvo hours, the well should be sampled as soon
as a stijficienl volume of groundwater is available to fill sample containers (DTG,- Well
Purging, 7.2.4, page 7-9). "
.'\pril 20, 2010 Docket No. UGW 10-03 Pane 2
11. Section 9.1.4(a) of the DUSA QAP requires that: "...RPDs will be calculated in comparisons
of duplicate and original field sample results. Non-confonnance will exist when the RPD
>20%, utdess the measured activities are less than 5 times the required detection limit
(Standard Methods, 1998} (EPA Contract Laboratory Progratn Nalional Functional
Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review, Fcbnmiy 1994,9240.1-05-0}, p. 25).'"
12. Section 11 of the DUSA QAP, requires in part that: Routine Groundwater Monitoring Reports
musl include: "...A summary data table showing the resuhs ofthe satnpling evenl, listing all
wells and the analytical results for all constituents and identifying any constituents that are
subject to accelerated monitoring in a?iy particular wells pursuant to Pdrtl.G.} of the GWDP
or are out of compliance in any panicular wells pursuant to Pan I.G.2 of die GWDP..."
C. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Denison Mines (USA) Coiporation (hereinafter DUSA) facility receives and processes
natural uranium-bearing ores and certain specified altemate feed materials, and possesses
byproduct material in the form of uranium waste tailings and other tiranium byproduct
waste generated by the licensee's milling operations. 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.
2. DUSA submitted a report titled "White Mesa Uranium Mill Groundwater Monitoring
Report 4'^' Quarter (October - December)" to the Utah Division of Radiation Control
(hereafter DRC) dated March 1, 2010 (hereinafter 4"^ Quarter, 2009 Report).
3. The DUSA 4''' Quarter, 2009 Groundwater Monitoring Report vva.s received at the DRC by
its respective due date (March 1, 2010).
4. The DRC conducted a review of the 4"" Quarter, 2009 Report to dcteiTnine compliance
with State Rules and Regulations and terms of the Permit.
5. Contrary to Part l.F.i of the Permit, DUSA failed to report a result for TDS in compliance
monitoring weJJs MW-3] and MW-32 in the 4"' Quarter 2009 Report, for the October 2009
monitoring event.
6. Contrary to Parts I.E. 1(a) and I.F.l(d) of the Pennii and Section 4.3.3 of the DUSA QAP,
DUSA failed to report a result for TDS in field duplicate MW-65 in the 4* Quarter 2009
Report, lor the October 2009 monitoring event. :
7. Contrary to the requirements of Part l.E.l(a) of the Permit and Section 6.2.7(d)(v) of the
DUSA QAP, DUSA failed to allow turbidity to stabilize within \07c before collecting
groundwater samples in 12 wells during the October, November, and December, 2009
monitoring events, as shown in Table 1 below.
.^pril 20. 2010 Docket No. UGW 10-03 Page 3
Table 1. Failure to Stabi ize Turbiditv Before Sample Collection
Croundwaler
Monitoring Event
Well
Second tn Last
Turbidity
Measurement
Last Turbidity
Measurement
%
Difference
4'" Qtr. 2009 MW-.3A 0 @ 7.28 ^;J]oni 0.5 @ I0.4.callons x
4"' Qir. 2009 MW-ll 5.4 (S' 16.27 gallons 2.2 @ 23.87 eallons -59%
4'" Qtr. 2009 M\V-12'^' 0.3 fef l.'i.l6Rallons 0.5 W 20.92 Gallons 67
4'" Qtr. 2009 MW-18'" 0 (5' [7.bS >;allonb . 0.9 (fl- 22.8 gallons •y)
4^" Qtr. 2009 MW-19'" 1.5 & 17.68 gallons 3.1 @ 22.88 gallons 101%
4''' Qtr. 2009 MW-20'" 3.8 (?) 4.16 liallons 2.3 (ff 5.2 gallons -39T
4'" Qir. 2009 MW-23'" 1.9 & 16.64 gallons 1.6 20.8 i:;dlotis -\6%
a'*" Qir. 2009 NfW-29'" 2.3 15.6 gallons, 8.9 <a> 22.88 gallons 2%1%
4'" Qtr. 2009 MW-30"' 1.6 @ 15.6 gallons . 0 @ 21.6 gallons 'jj
4'" Qir. 2009 MW-32"' 10 (&> 17.36 gallons 7.3 (y' 23.87 gallons •21%
Noviiinber. 2009 MW-32'-' 7.1 (a'' 45.57 eaJtons 5.9 & 69.44 gallons -\1%
December. 2009 Nf\^'-32'" 1.7 & 52.08 Gallons 6.9 69.44 gallons 306%
Footnotes:
I) Dala tbr this well was
2( Daia for ihi-i well v.as
3i Data Ibr ihis well was
obtained rrom Tab B ol'lhe 4'*" Qii;uler 2009 GrouiiiJwaier Moriiioriiig Report
obtained froniTah C ofthe 4''' Quarter 2009 Groundwater Monitoring Report
obUiined from Tab D of the 4"' Quaner 2009 Groundwater Monitoring Rcporl
Contrary to the requirements of Part I.E. 1(a) of the Pemiit and Section 6.2.7(d)(v) of the
DUSA QAP, DUSA failed to allow redox potential (Eh) to stabilize within lO^r before
collecting groundwater samples in 5 wells during the October, and November, 2009
monitoring events, as shown in Table 2, below.
Table 2. Failure to Stabilize Redox Potential Jefore Sample Col ection i
Groundwater
Moniluring Event
Well
Second to 1.a.st
Redux Potential (Eh)
Measurement
Last
Redo.\ Potential (Ell)
Measurement
%
Difference
4'^ Qir, 2009 MW-2 " 92 (0' 7.28 gallons 127 10.4gallons 38'.?
Qrr. 200'J MW-18"' 14 &' 17.68 Gallons 11 to'22.8 gallons -21'^
4"' Qir, 2009 MW-24"' 152 3.12 gallon.s JS2 & 5.2 Gallons 20',^c.
4"' Qir, 2009 MW-29'" 142 (P: 15.6 gallons L';9 (ft: 22.88 gallon.s 12'A
Novtrraber, 2009 MVf'-32 136 Cf" 45.57 callous 121 (ai 69.44 gallons
Footnole.'::
1) Data tor this well was obiaineJ Irom Tab B of ihc 4'"' Quarter 2009 Groimdwaicr Moniiorini: Report
2i Daia for ihis well was obtained from Tab C of lhe 4''' Quarter 2009 Groundwater MonlLonng Reiwrt
9. Contrary to the requirements of Part l.E.l(a) ofthe Pemiit and Section 6.2.7 of the DUSA
QAP, DUSA failed to evacuate two casing volumes before collecting groundwater samples
in 17 wells during the 4^^ Quarter (October), 2009 monitoring event, as shown in Table 3,
below.
Table 3, Failure to Evacuate Two Casing Volumes Before Sample Collection
Groundwater
Monitoring
Event
Monitoring
Well
DUSA
Calculated
Two Casii^
Volumes
DUSA
Calculated
Purge Rate
DUSA
Calculated
Time to Purge
Two Ca.sing
Volumes
(Minutes)
Reported
Time Well
Purged
(Minutes)
Total ( Gallons
Purged Before
Sample
CoUection
4'^ Qtr, 2009 MW-l 38.14 .217 gpm 175 120 26.04
4"'Qir, 2009 MW-5 41.7 .192 gpm 217 120 23 04
4" Qir, 2009 MW-11 •'• 52.04 .217 240 120 26.04
4"' Qtr, 2009 MW-12"' 2S.6 . 192 epm 148 120 23.04
4"'0ir, 2009 MW-14''' 32.78 .208 irpm 157 120 24.96
4"' Qtr. 2009 MW-15 "' 40.08 .208 gpm 192 120 24.96
4"' Qtr. 2009 MW-17'" 46.08 .208 gpm 221 120 2496
.April 20, 2010 Docket No. UGWIO-03 Page 4
4"' Qtr. 2009 MW-18'" 82.38 .208 gpm 396 120 24.96
4'" Qtr. 2009 MW-19'" 128.22 .208 gpm 616 120 24.96
4'" Qtr. 2009 MW-22'" 61.38 .217 epm 282 120 26.04
4'" Qtr. 2009 MW-25'" 51.06 .200 gpm 255 120 24
4'" Qtr, 2009 •MW-27"' 57.40 .33 gpm 173 120 39.6
4'"* Qir, 2009 MW-2S'-' 42.14 .208 epm 202 120 24.96
4"' Qtr. 2009 MW-29'" 31.6 .208 gpm 151 120 24.96
4'" Qir. 2009 MW-30'" 42.54 .200 gpm 212 120 24
4" Qtr, 2009 MW-31 *" 78.74 .208 gpm 378 120 24.96
4" Qtr, 2009 MW-32'" 72.32 .217 gpm 333 120 26.04 .
Fooinoies:
1) Data for this well was obtained from Tab B ofthe 4'"' Quarter 2009 Groundwater .Monitoring Report
10. Contrary to the requirements of Part LE. 1 (a) of the Permit and Section 3.1 of the QAP of
the DUSA QAP, DUSA failed to use the correct fomiula in 39 instances to determine
Relative Percent Difference (RPD) for the duplicate samples collected during the October,
November, and December, 2009 monitoring events, as shown on Tables 4 thru 7, below.
Table 4. RPD Calculation Violations: Original Sample (MW-32) vs. Blind Duplicate
(MW-65) in October, 2009
Constituent Well MW-32 MW-65
(Blind Duplicate) DUSA i:alculated RPD
DRC
Calculated
RPI)
Aminonia as
(N) 0.77 mg/L 0.74 mg/L 0.99 3.97
Cadmium 3.04 ^g/L 3.06 Mg/L 0.17 -0.66
Cobalt 47 ^g/L 46 Mp/L 0..54 2.15
Iron 7.980 Mg/L 7,790 iig/L 0.93 2.41
Molybdenum 11 fig/L 10 Mg/L 2.38 9.,52
Thallium 0.82 HR/L 0.77 MP/L -6.29
Ur;inium 2.50 Mg/L 2.40 Mg/L -0.69 4.08
Zinc 156 Mg/L 149M.g/L 4.55 • 4.50
Sulfate 2,290 Mg/L 2,360 Mg/L -0.75 -3.01
Bicarbonalc 440 Mg/L 445 M^/L -0.28 -1.13
Sodium 238 Mg/L 235 Mg/L 0.32 1.27
Pniassium 14.5 M.c/L 14.9 Mg/L -0.68 -2.72
Magnesium 224 Mg/L 23 1 Mg/L -0.77 . -3.08
Calcium 529 Mg/L 531 MS/L -0.09 • -2.83
Table 5. RPD Calculation Violations: Original Sample (MW-22) vs.
B ind Duplicate ( MW-70) in October, 2009
Constituent
Method Detection
Limit
(MDL)
Well \rW-22 MW-70
(Blind Duplitialc)
DUSA
Calculated RPD
DRC
Calculated
RPD
Ammonia as (N) 0.1 0.6 mg/L 0.92 mg/L -10.53 -42.11
Beryllium 0.50 2.5 ug/L 2.8 Mg/L' -2.83 -11.32
Cadmium 0.50 91.4 Mg/L 90.6 ug/L 0.22 0.88
Cobalt 10 308 Mg/L 298 Mg/L 0.83 3.30
Man cane se 10 31,800 Mg/L 32.200 Mg/L -0.31 -1.25
Selenium 5 12.1 Mg/L 11.8 Mg/L 0.63 2.51
Thallium 0.50 1.2 Mg/L 1.17 Mg/L 0.63 2.53
Uranium 0.30 51.7 Mg/L 48.32 ug/L 1.75 6.76
Zinc 10 532 ug/L 527 ug/L 0.24 0.94
pH 0.01 7.22 s.u. 6.72 s.u. 1.79 7.17
Fluoride 0.1 3.2 Mg/L 3 Mg/L 1.61 6.45
Chloride 1 67 ug/L 64 ug/L 1.15 4.58
TDS 10 7.600 ug/L 7,660 ug/L -0.20 . -0.79
Bicarbonalc 1 499 Mg/L 494 ug/L 0.25 • 1.01
Sodium 1.1 249 ug/L 241Mg/L 0.82 3.27
April 2t). 2010 Docket N o. UGWIO-03 Page 5
Magnesium 0.50 983 Mg/L 987 Mg/L -0.10 -0.41
Calcium 1.2 453 ug/L 461Mg/L -0.44 -1.75
Table 6. RPD Calculation Violations: Original Sample (MW-32) vs.
Constituent Well MW-32 MW-65
(Blind Duplicate)
DUSA
Calculated RPD
DRC
Calculated
RPD
Cadmium 1.31 Mg/L 1.20 Mg/L 2.19 8.76
Iron 6.540 ug/L 6.350 ug/L 2.58 0.15
Manganese 5.260 Mg/L 4.950 Mg/L 2.24 6.07
Nickel • 47 Mg/L .^9 Mg/L 3.28 18.60
Table 7. RPD Calculation Violations: Original Sample (MW-32) vs.
Constituent Well MW-32 MW-65
(Blind Duplicate)
DUSA
Calculated RPD
DRC
Calculated
RPD
Cadmium L13 Mg/L 1.12 Mg/L 0.22 0.89
Iron 6,970 ug/L 6.860 ug/L 1.25 1.59
Manganese 5,270 ug/L 5.300 ug/L 5.94 -0.57
Nickel 50 Mg/L 50 ug/L 1.68 0
11. Contrary to the requirements of Part I.E. 1(e) of the Permit and Section 9.1.4(a) of the
DUSA QAP, DUSA failed to fully and completely disclose non-conformance in well MW-
22 and blind duplicate sample MW-70 for the October, 2009 sampling event, where the
RPD for anmnonia (as nitrogen) was greater than 20%. Details of this violation are found
in Table 5, above.
12. Contrary to the requirements of Part I.E. 1(a) of the Permit and Section 11 ofthe DUSA
QAP, DUSA failed to list all monitoring welis and analytes subject to accelerated
groundwater monitoring under Parts T.G.I orl.G.2 of the Permit, including GWCL
exceedances from the October, 2009 sampling event for uranium in three wells (MW-14,
MW-15, and MW-17) and thallium in well MW-18.
D. VIOLATIONS
Based on the foregoing FINDINGS OF FACT, DUSA is in violation of the following:
1. Part I.E. 1 of the Permit for failing to report all well monitoring and samples collected,
including a result for TDS in wells MW-31 and MW-32 in the 4'^ Quarter 2009 Report, for
the October 2009 monitoring event.
2. Part I.F. 1 of the Permit and Section 4.3.3 of the DUSA QAP for failing to report all well
monitoring and samples collected, including a result for TDS in field duplicate MW-65 in
the 4'"^ Quarter 2009 Report, for the October 2009 monitoring event.
3. Part I.E. 1 (a) of the Pemiit and Section 6.2.7(d)(v) of the DUSA QAP for failing lo achieve
stable turbidity conditions before collecting groundwater samples in 12 wells during the
October, November, and December, 2009 monitoring events.
April 20, 2010 Docket No. UGW 10-03 Page 6
4. Part I.E. 1 (a) of the Permit and Section 6.2.7(d)(v) of the DUSA QAP for failing to achieve
stable redox potential (Eh) conditions before collecting groundwater samples in 5 wells
during the October and November, 2009 monitoring events.
5. Part I.E. 1 (a) of the Permit and Section 6.2.7(d)(v) of the DUSA QAP for failing to
. excavate two casing volumes before collecting groundwater samples in 17 wells during the
4^ Quarter (October) 2009 monitoring event.
6. Part l.E.l(a) ofthe Permit and Section 3.1 of the DUSA QAP for failing to use the correct
formula in 39 instances to determine RPD for the duplicates of the October, November,
and December, 2009 monitoring events.
7. Part T.F.I(e) of the Permit and Section 9.1.4(a) of the DUSA QAP for failure to fully and
completely disclose all non-conformance with the approved QAP for the October, 2009
sampling event with respect to a RPD in excess of 20% for ammonia (as nitrogen) in well
MW-22 and blind duplicate sample MW-70.
8. Part I.E.l(a) ofthe Permit and Section 11 ofthe DUSA QAP for faihng to list in a
summary table analytes wells that were subject to accelerated monitoring pursuant to Parts
I.G.I and 2 of the Permit, including uranium (MW-14, MW-15, and MW-17) and thallium
(MW-18).
E. ORDER
In view of the foregoing FINDINGS, and pursuant to Utah Code Annotated Section I9-3-I08,
DUSA is hereby ordered to:
1. 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 Permit (including but not limited to requirements ofthe
DUSA QAP.)
2. Submit a report to the Co-Executive Secretary within 30 days of receipt of this NOV and
Order to include but not be limited to the following items:
a. The root cause of the noncompliance,
b. Corrective steps taken or to be taken to prevent re-occim'ence of the noncompliance,
c. Date when compliance was/or will be achieved.
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 could
April 20, 2010 Docket No. UGW 10-03 Page 7
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 AdiTiinistrative Code § R317-9-
3(3). Any further administrative proceedings in this case shall be conducted formally under Ulah
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.g.. withdrawing the NOV/CO).
1
A response contesting this NOV/CO must be received by the Co-Executive Secretary within 30
calendar days of receipt of this NOV/CO.
(Mailing address) (Address for by-hand or ovemight delivery)
Dane L. Finerfrock, Co-Executive Secretary Dane L. Finerfrock, Co-Executive Secretaiy
Utah Water Quality Board Utah Water Quality Board
168 North 1950 West Utah DEQ Building 2, DRC 2"^ Floor
P.O. Box 144850 168 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City. UT 84114-4850 Salt Lake City UT, 84114
You will not be allowed to contest this NOV/CO in court or in any other foium if you do not first
contest the NOV/CO as described above.
^/
Signed this A/ day of Apnl, 2010
UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD
Dane L. Finerfrocl
Co-Executive Seci'^tary
April 20.2010 Docket No. UGWIO-03 Page 8