DRC-2010-002825 - 0901a0688017c8b1

State of Utah
GARY R. HERBERT
GREG BELL
LiL-uicnunl Govvnior
April 21. 2010
Department of
Environmental Quality
.Anwnda Sttiiih
L\ecuii\i' Direcior
DI\'1S1( >N OF RADIATION CONTROL
Djne L. Fimrr+'riick
Din-i^lor ru
U.S.! Postal Service n,
CERTIFIED MAIL, RECEIPT
(Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided)
For delivery Information visit our website at www.usps.rajiriu
PostmarK
Here
a
CD
CD
r,.-,|.-E IF tNF >PCEMtnini?i Pth' ^l.-tC'-L ^ECi T If TI EE
SenfTo
F.1UL-.i[' •. ri- ['PKLilNH
orPOBo^y^';:*'"""^' ""- - ' •
[>Eti E-' •OBI':-.-
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. David C. Frydenlund
Vice President and General Counsel
Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (DUSA)
1050 Seventeenth Street, Suite 950
Denver, CO 80265
Subject: December 23, 2009 DUSA Response Regarding November 17, 2009 DRC NOTICE OF
VIOLATION AND ORDER TO PROVIDE INFORMATION Docket No. UGW09-06 - I '
Quarter, 2(X)9 Groundwater Momtoring Report; Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit No.
UGW370004 (Penmit) - DRC Findings, Notice of Enforcement Discretion, and Closeout
Letter.
Dear Mr. Frydenlund: j
The Utah Division of Radiation Control (DRC) reviewed DUSA's December 23, 2009 response to the
DRC's Notice of Violation and Order to Provide Information (Docket Number UGW09-06). Based ori this
review the DRC has detemnined the following:
1. Violation No. 1 (Part l.E.l(a) ofthe Permit and Sections 6.2.2(a) and 6.2.7(d)(v) ofthe DUSA
QAP) - for failure to measure turbidity in wells lVIW-14 and MW-32 during the January,j
2009 monitoring event and wells MW-20 and MW-22 during the February, 2009 monitoring
event. {
DRC Findings: the DUSA root cause analysis focu.sed on certain complications experienced during
the quarteriy sampling event in question, including a loss of chain ol" custody, needed re-sampling, 'and
apparent inoperable turbidity meter during re-sampling. We accept the corrective actions taken, |
including re-lralning of DUSA staff (prior to December 23. 2009) and purchase of backup field I
instruments (March. 2009). :
El
a
However, despite DUSA's December 23, 2009 explanation. Violation No. I still stands as vvriuen. j
After considering the Executive Secretary's possible enforcement options, we have detemiined nol to
pursue a monetary penalty for Violation No. I. in that this was the first time this problem has been
cited. However, should the root cause analysis or corrective actions provided in your December 23,
2009 response fail to be accurate or lasting. DUSA may be subject to escalated enforcement action in
the future. j
108 Nonh 1950 Wcsi 'SnW L^lieCiity. I IT
Mailinr Address: P.O. Bo.x 14485(t• Suit Like Cily, trr S41 !4-4«5()
TckplKiriftSOh 536-4230 • PUT (SOI I 533401)7 • T D D. (801 J r.''(>-44l4
n ^vi\ .litq.iiiiih. yiii'
I'lmifd nn lOO'^- recvrled paper
Page 2
2. Violation No. 2 (Part l.E.l(a) of the Permit and Section 6.2.7fd)(v) ofthe DUSA OAP) • for
failing to achieve stable turbidity conditions before collecting groundwater samples in 17
wells during the February and March, 2009 monitoring events. |
DRC Findings: the DUSA root cause analysis focused on a lack of understanding on the part of
DUSA staff. We accept the corrective action taken that included re-training of DUSA staff and
changes to internal review procedures by DUSA management of field data worksheets. We disagree'
with your claim that compliance was achieved with the 4''' Quarter, 2009 sampling event. DRC review
of that report is on-going, and additional information will be forwarded to you shortly.
Nonetheless, Violation No. 2 still stands despite DUSA's December 23, 2009 response. After |
considering the Executive Secretary's possible enforcement options, we have determined not to pursue
a monetary penalty for Violation No. 2 because this was the first time this problem has been cited, j
However, should the root cause and corrective actions provided in your December 23. 2009 response
fail to be accurate or lusting, DUSA may be subject to future escalated enforcement action.
3. Violation No. 3 (Part LE.l(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.
, I
DRC Findings: again, the DUSA root cause analysis focused on a lack of understanding on the patt of
DUSA staff. We accept the corrective action taken that included re-training of DUSA staff and |
changes to intemal review procedures by DUSA management of field data worksheets. We disagree
with your claim lhat compliance was achieved with the 4"^ Quarter, 2(K)9 sampling evenl. DRC review
of lhat report is on-going, and additional informalion will be forwiyded to you shortly
Despite lhe DUSA's December 23, 2009 response. Violation No. 3 still stands as written. After
considering the Executive .Secretary's possible enforcement options, we have detemiined not to pursue
a monetary penalty for Violation No. 3 because this was the first lime this problem has been cited. |
However, should the root cause and corrective actions provided in your December 23. 2009 response
fail lo be accurate or lasting, DUSA may be subject to future escalated enforcement action. |
4. Violation No. 4 (Part l.E.l(a) ofthe Permit and Section 9.1.3 ofthe DUSA OAP)_- for failing
to provide any comparison of March, 2009 Trip Blank results to original sample results fpr
multiple volatile organic compounds. i
1
DRC Findings: the root cause analysis provided by DUSA focused on a 2-part failure of the contract
laboratory to; 1) analyze the trip blank sample (due lo instrument malfunction) and 2) provide.timely
notice of the failure to DUSA to allow re-sampling before end ofthe quarter We accept the corrective
actions implemented by DUSA, including: 1) eariier sampling in the quarter, 2) instructions to the
contract laboratory to provide timely notification to DUSA of such failures in the future, and 3)
changes lo intemal review procedures by DUSA managemeni to detect omission of analysis of QA;
related samples. We also accept the fact that effective December 23, 2009. DUSA has informed the
contract laboratory of the need for timely notice in the event of omission of trip blank analysis. j
Despite the DUSA's December 23, 2009 response. Violation No. 4 still stands as written. After j
considering the Executive Secretary's possible enforcement options, we have determined nol to pursue
a inoneiar>' penalty for Violation No. 4 because this was the first time this problem has been cited, j
However, should the root cause and corrective actions provided in your December 23, 2009 response
fail to be accurate or lasting, DUSA may be subject lo future escalaled enforcement action. I
Page 3
Thank you for your continued cooperation. Please contact Phil Goble at (801) .536-4044 with any
questions. j
UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD
Dane L. Finerfrocl
Co-Executive Secretaiy
DLF/PRG:prg