DRC-2010-003213 - 0901a0688018afc3

'-'-.•iiLli'"''
State of Utah
GARY R. HERBERT
Governor
GREG BELL
Lieutenant Governor
Department of
Environmental Quality
Amanda Smith
Executive Director
DFVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
Dane L. Finerfrock
Director
RC-2010-00521
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
File
Phil Goble, Hydrogeologist /^'/2^
May 12,2010
New Decontamination Pad (NDP) at the Denison Mines (USA) [DUSA] White
Mesa Mill
NDP Chronology / History
The following is a history of facts and chronology regarding the DUSA New Decontamination
Pad:
1. License Condition 9.7 of the DUSA License states: " ...Before engaging in any activity not
previously assessed by the Executive Secretary, the licensee shall administer a cultural
resource inventory... "
2. On August 22, 2008 during excavation of a New Decontamination Pad (NDP), DUSA
exposed an adjacent Anasazi burial site where human bones were identified. On October 6,
2008, DUSA provided an October 3, 2008 preliminary archeological report by Abajo
Archeology that documents a study at the NDP site.
3. Part I.D.4 ofthe DUSA Permit states: " ...any construction, modification, or operation of new
waste or wastewater disposal, treatment, or storage facilities shall require submittal of
engineering design plans and specifications, and prior Executive Secretary review and
approval... "
4. Part IV. A ofthe DUSA Permit states: "The Permittee shall give notice to the Executive
Secretary as soon as possible of any planned physical alterations or additions to the permitted
facility. Notice is required when the alteration or addition could significantly change the
nature ofthe facility or increase the quantity of pollutants discharged. "
5. On October 7, 2008 DRC staff wrote DUSA management (Executive Vice President,
Operations) and asked if wastewater would be generated at the NDP, and if so, reminded
DUSA of its responsibility to comply with Part I.D.4 of the Permit.
195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, UT
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144850 • Salt Uke City, UT 84114^850
Telephone [phone] • Fax (801) 533'-4097 • T.D.D. [phone]
wivw.deq.utah.gov
Printed on 100% recycled paper
Page 2
6. In a letter of October 13, 2008 DUSA responded with findings that took exception to the DRC
October 7, 2008 email. In this response, DUSA made several arguments to explain why the
Permit does not apply to the NDP, including, but not limited to:
A. Water used at the NDP is part of a "closed loop" system with no release or discharge of
water,
B. Decontamination activities / process at the NDP are part of the mill process, and therefore
do not constitute waste or wastewater,
C. No wastes are generated at the NDP. Water is re-used. Solids collected in the
sedimentation tank are equivalent to materials held on the ore-storage pad, and may
eventually be placed there for storage, or processed thru the mill, or placed directly in the
tailings cells for disposal,
D. Water and solids at the NDP contain contaminants that are normally associated with
uranium ores, and are found in the mill's process circuit.
7. During a DRC inspection on November 17, 2008, it was discovered that DUSA had
constructed the NDP, without prior Executive Secretary approval, as required by Part I.D.4 of
the Permit.
8. During a November 24, 2008 conference call with DUSA, the company argued that no prior
DRC authorization was required for design, construction or operation of the NDP because:
a. The NDP is not a wastewater facility, but instead manages "process water."
b. The NDP performs the same tasks, and has the same equiprnent / procedures as the
Existing Decontamination Pad (hereafter EDP), which was authorized by the NRC
Radioactive Materials License around 1997 or 1998.
c. Prior to construction of the EDP, DUSA practice was to decontaminate trucks and
equipment on the ore storage pad, or anywhere else at the mill, without regard to capturing
and containing the wash water. Therefore, the EDP and NDP represent improvements
over former DUSA practices.
d. DUSA performs radiologic surveys with field instruments that will verify if the trucks or
containers are clean and ready for release from the site. Therefore, no concem is
warranted regarding recycling of wash water, or the accumulation of contaminants in the
sediment basins, so long as the radiologic surveys show the trucks and containers are
"clean" before release from the restricted area.
9. In a December 2, 2008 DRC e-mail, the DRC explained that prior authorization for design,
construction, or operation of the NDP is not required, should a facility meet the definition of
"de-minimus" under UAC R317-6-6.2(A)(25). In tum, DRC staff concluded that the wash
water in the sediment basin of the facility would be "de-minimus" so long as it does NOT
exceed the State GWQS, as outlined in Table 2 of the Groundwater Permit. Because the DRC
was involved in a major modification of the DUSA Permit at the time, the DRC asked DUSA
to give the DRC feedback regarding this proposed requirement. DRC staff also informed
Page 3
DUSA about plans to modify the Permit to require DUSA to perform routine wash water
sampling, analysis, and reporting to confirm its "de-minimus" status.
10. Through the end of March, 2009 DUSA did not respond to the proposed Permit requirements
for the NDP; therefore, the DRC added new BAT Performance Standards for Decontamination
Pads in Part I.D. 12 of the Permit to require DUS A to maintain wastewater quality
concentrations at or below the Utah GWQS for all contaminants defined in Table 2 of this
Permit for all wastewater contained in the sediment basins at all decontamination pads.
11. On March 25, 2009 DRC staff met with the DUSA Chief Executive Officer. Options were
discussed regarding retrofit design and construction changes that could be made to the NDP to
meet BAT guidelines for the facility. One of these options was the insertion of a steel liner
and monitoring of the annulus between the concrete vault and the steel liner to determine
compliance.
12. The Draft April 1, 2009 DUSA Permit was e-mailed to DUSA on April 20, 2009. DUSA and
the DRC met on May 11, 2009 to discuss the proposed changes to the Permit. DUSA did not
consider the proposed requirements (Parts I.D. 12, I.E. 12,1.F.12) for the NDP to be a practical
solution, and agreed that it would not use the NDP until the Executive Secretary had approved
the design and construction of the NDP.
13. In a May 29, 2009 e-mail, DUSA submitted As-Built drawings of the NDP. In the e-mail,
states: "Attached are the drawings for the new decon pad for your review. The steel liner has
not yet been installed pending your approval The remaining construction is in place and
these drawings should be considered "As-Built". "Once we receive your approval on the
drawings, the liner will be installed and we will fill the containment with fresh water to the
maximum depth and monitor the leak detection system for 48 hours to ensure the steel liner is
not leaking. "
14. In a June 5, 2009 letter, DUSA proposed the following regarding the NDP:
"Based on our discussions on May 11, 2009, and after having considered this matter further,
Denison, proposes the following conditions that must be satisfied prior to the Mill using the
Decontamination Pad:
a. the Executive Secretary reviews and approves the as-built drawings for the
Decontamination Pad (other than the liner and leak detection system, which have not
yet been constructed), that have been provided by Denison to the Executive Secretary;
b. the Executive Secretary reviews and approves the engineering design drawings for the
liner and leak detection system, that have been provided by Denison to the Executive
Secretary;
c. the Executive Secretary reviews and approves an As Low As Reasonably Achievable
("ALARA ") analysis provided by Denison that demonstrates that the re-use and
recycling of wash water as per the design of the Decontamination Pad will result in
radiation exposures to workers and members of the public ALARA;
Page 4
d. the Executive Secretary reviews and approves amendments, proposed by Denison, to
the Mill's existing Discharge Minimization Technology ("DMT") Plan to include:
• The manner of monitoring the leak detection system for the Decontamination Pad
to ensure that any leaks in the liner are detected as soon as possible; and
• The manner of inspecting the Decontamination Pad, including the leak detection
system, and setting out a new inspection form or changing an existing inspection
form to document such inspections;
e. Denison constructs the liner and leak detection system in accordance with the
approved drawings and submits a final as-built report to the Executive Secretary for
his review and approval;
f. Denison performs a hydrostatic test of the liner and leak detection system, after having
given the Executive Secretary at least 10 days advance notice of the date on which the
test will be conducted, in order to provide the Executive Secretary with the opportunity
to witness the test;
g. The hydrostatic test demonstrates that the liner and leak detection system perform in
accordance with the approved drawings, and the Executive Secretary approves the
results of such test; and
h. The Executive Secretary gives his final approval for the Mill to commence use of the
Decontamination Pad, which approval will be given by the Executive Secretary upon
satisfaction of all of the foregoing conditions. "
15. The DRC removed Parts I.D.12,1.E.12, and I.F.12 ofthe Permit and added compliance
schedule item I.H.5 to the Draft Permit as follows:
5. "New Decontamination Pad - the Permittee shall not use the New Decontamination Pad
until the following conditions are satisfied:
a. Within 30 calendar days of issuance of the Permit, the Permittee shall submit an
updated DMT Monitoring Plan for Executive Secretary approval that includes but is
not limited to the following:
1) The manner of weekly inspections the New Decontamination Pad, including the
leak detection system and concrete integrity of the decontamination pad.
2) Within 30 calendar days of issuance of the Permit, the Permittee shall submit an
updated Contingency Plan that clarifies what steps will be taken if there is water
found within the leak detection system and if discrepancies are observed on the
concrete pad.
3) Annual Inspection - the New Decontamination Pad will be taken out of service and
inspected annually during the second quarter, to ensure integrity of the concrete
surfaces. If discrepancies are identified [i.e. crack in the concrete with greater
than 1/8 inch separation (width) or any significant deterioration or damage ofthe
pad surface], repairs shall be made prior to resuming the use ofthe facility. The
inspection findings, any repairs required, and repairs completed shall be included
in the in the 2" Quarter DMT Monitoring Report due September 1, of each
calendar year.
b. The Executive Secretary approves the engineering design drawings for the liner and
Page 5
leak detection system, before they are constructed.
c. The Permittee shall perform a hydrostatic test that verifies that the steel liner and leak
detection system performs in accordance with the approved drawings and will provide
the test results within 30 calendar days after completion of the test. The Permittee
shall provide at least 10 calendar days notice prior to performing the hydrostatic test
to allow a DRC inspector to be present.
d. The Executive Secretary approves all the As-Built drawings for the Decontamination
Pad "
16. On August 6, 2009 the DRC sent DUSA a RFI about the NDP. This RFl is included as
Attachment 1.
17. The September 1, 2009 Draft Permit and Statement of Basis was sent out to Public Comment
on September 2, 2009.
18. During an October 8, 2009 DRC inspection of the White Mesa Mill, it was observed that the
steel liner had been constructed at the NDP and DUSA had placed water inside the steel liner.
During the inspecfion, DUSA personal stated that the steel liner had been installed 3 weeks
prior and the hydrostatic test was started on October 6, 2009.
19. The DRC received public comment from Mr. David Frydenlund of DUSA on October 8, 2009.
One of his comments was regarding the NDP, as follows:
"Once the new decontamination pad is constructed. Mill personnel will be able to check the
leak detection system weekly and will be able to take the pad out of service annually in order
to inspect the integrity of the steel liner in each of the settling ponds and the visually exposed
surface areas of the concrete pad. However, it will not be possible to inspect the integrity of
the concrete surfaces below the steel liner in each tank, as it will not be possible to remove the
steel liner from each tank. Inspections of such concrete surfaces are not necessary, given the
fact that the tanks are lined with steel liners, a leak detection system is checked weekly, and
the integrity ofthe steel liners is checked annually. References to concrete surfaces should
therefore be removed from Part I.H.5, or it should be made clear that only visually exposed
areas ofthe concrete pad need to be inspected annually and that this does not include areas
under the steel tank liners. "
20. The DRC agreed with the comment and Part I.H.5 of the Permit was modified so that the New
Decontaminafion Pad would be inspected annually to ensure integrity of the exposed concrete
surface on the wash pad.
21. November 16, 2009 DUSA responds to the August 6, 2009 DRC RFI.
22. The DUSA Groundwater Discharge Permit (Mod. 6) was finalized on January 20, 2010. The
final requirements regarding the NDP (Part I.H.4) are as follows:
4. "New Decontamination Pad - the Permittee shall not use the New Decontamination Pad
Page 6
until the following conditions are satisfied:
e. Within 30 calendar days of issuance of the Permit, the Permittee shall submit an
updated DMT Monitoring Plan for Executive Secretary approval that includes but is
not limited to the following:
1) The manner of weekly inspections the New Decontamination Pad, including the
leak detection system and concrete integrity of the decontamination pad.
2) Within 30 calendar days of issuance of the Permit, the Permittee shall submit an
updated Contingency Plan that clarifies what steps will be taken if there is water
found within the leak detection system and if discrepancies are observed on the
concrete pad.
3) Annual Inspection - the New Decontamination Pad will be taken out of service and
inspected annually during the second quarter, to ensure integrity of the wash pad's
exposed concrete surface. If discrepancies are identified [i.e. crack in the concrete
with greater than 1/8 inch separation (width) or any significant deterioration or
damage ofthe pad surface], repairs shall be made prior to resuming the use of the
facility. The inspection findings, any repairs required, and repairs completed shall
be included in the in the 2"'^ Quarter DMT Monitoring Report due September 1, of
each calendar year.
f. The Executive Secretary approves the engineering design drawings for the liner and
leak detection system, before they are constructed.
g. The Permittee shall perform a hydrostatic test that verifies that the steel liner and leak
detection system performs in accordance with the approved drawings and will provide
the test results within 30 calendar days after completion of the test. The Permittee
shall provide at least 10 calendar days notice prior to performing the hydrostatic test
to allow a DRC inspector to be present.
h. The Executive Secretary approves all the As-Built drawings for the Decontamination
Pad."
23. On Febmary 4, 2010 the DRC sent DUSA a RFI about the NDP. This RFI is included as
Attachment 2.
24. On March 12, 2010 DUSA responds to the Febmary 4, 2010 DRC RFI. In this letter, DUSA
makes the statement: "We are hopeful that this information and the enclosed attachments
satisfy the DRC Request for Information. We would like to begin using the new
decontamination pad beginning Monday, March 22, 2010. Please advise if this is not
acceptable." This statement was not identified by the DRC unfil April 12, 2010.
25. On Monday March 22, 2010 DUSA (Harold Roberts) sent an e-mail to the White Mesa that
states: "All: Attached is a copy of the letter response we sent to the State concerning the
new decon pad. In the letter we indicated that we were planned to begin using the pad on
march 22 (today), and requested that the state let us know if this was not acceptable. I have
heard nothing ofthis morning. Therefore, you are free to begin using the pad. Make sure
that your are in compliance with all the inspection requirements in the revised DMT plan
attached to the letter. Even though the State has not approved the revisions we should still
Page 7
begin operating under the changes related to the Decon Pad." This DUSA email was
provided to DRC staff during the May 4, 2010 inspecfion.
26. On May 4, 2010 during an inspecfion of the White Mesa Mill, it was observed that: 1) the
NDP had been placed into service, and 2) the DRC had not yet approved the use of the NDP.
Pictures were taken of the NDP during the May 4, 2010 inspection these pictures have been
included as Attachment 3.
27. On May 10, 2010 the DRC sent DUSA a RFI about the NDP. This RFI is included as
Attachment 4.
Staff Recommendations
DUSA began using the NDP on March 22, 2010. Part I.H.4 ofthe Permit prohibited use of the
NDP until a number of items were safisfied. During a May 4, 2010 DRC inspection, it was
observed that DUSA had placed the NDP into service. As of this date May 11, 2010 the
Execufive Secretary has not given DUSA approval to put the NDP into service. Therefore, DRC
staff believes it is appropriate to issue DUSA a Notice of Violation with an order to immediately
Cease and Desist all activities at the New Decontamination Pad unfil fiarther notice. DUSA
should be cited for the following violafions:
1. Part I.D.4 of the Permit for constmcfion, and operation of a new wastewater treatment or
storage facility without submittal of engineering design plans and specifications, and prior
Execufive Secretary review and approval.
Reason: During a DRC inspecfion on November 17, 2008, it was discovered that DUSA had
constmcted the NDP, without prior Executive Secretary approval. Contrary to the views held
by DUSA in their October 13, 2008 letter, DRC staff have concluded that the solids and water
held in the NDP sedimentation tanks (partially below grade) consfitute a potenfial source of
pollution to "waters of the state" (including groundwater), for the following reasons:
A. The discharge or potential discharge of pollutants into "waters of the state" is unlawful
without prior receipt of a discharge permit, as provided in the Utah Water Quality Act
(UCA 19-5-107), as follows (emphasis added):
"'19-5-107. Discharge of pollutants unlawful — Discharge permit required.
(1) (a) Except as provided in this chapter or rules made under it, it is unlawful for
any person to discharge a pollutant into waters of the state or to cause pollution
which constitutes a menace to public health and welfare, or is harmful to wildlife,
fish or aquatic life, or impairs domestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational, or
other beneficial uses of water, or to place or cause to be placed any wastes in a
location where there is probable cause to believe it will cause pollution.
(3) It is unlawful for any person, without first securing a permit from the
executive secretary as authorized by the board, to:
Pages
(a) make any discharge or manage sewage sludge not authorized under an existing
valid discharge permit; or
(b) construct, install, modify, or operate any treatment works or part of any
treatment works or any extension or addition to any treatment works, or construct,
install, or operate any establishment or extension or modification of or addition to
any treatment works, the operation of which would probably result in a
discharge."
Because the NDP tanks are located partially below grade, there is a potenfial that joints,
cracks or other defects in the tank walls could release contact water to the subsurface
without the ability for ready detection and repair; thus leading to possible groundwater
pollufion.
B. The DUSA NDP sedimentafion tanks include baffles to cause sedimentafion and a
pumping stafion to lift contact water back up to the wash pad for decontamination. As a
result, the tanks provide a treatment (sedimentafion / clarificafion) of the contact water that
allows water re-use on the wash pad. Therefore, DRC staff concludes that this system
meets the definifion of "Treatment Works" as found in UAC R317-1 -1.29, as follows:
"7.2P "Treatment works" means any plant, disposal field, lagoon, dam, pumping
station, incinerator, or other works used for the purpose of treating, stabilizing or
holding wastes. (Section 19-5-102)."
C. Solids held in the NDP tanks meet the definifion of "waste" in UAC R317-1-1.32, as
follows (emphasis added):
1.32 "Wastes" means dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage,
sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive
materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt, and
industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water. (Section 19-5-
102)."
D. In addifion, the contact water held in the NDP storage tanks meets the definifion of
"wastewater" in UAC R317-1 -1.33 (emphasis added):
"7.33 "Wastewater" means sewage, industrial waste or other liquid
substances which might cause pollution of waters of the state. Intercepted
ground water which is uncontaminated by wastes is not included."
As discussed above, the potential for undetected release of wastes and wastewater to
groundwater might cause groundwater pollufion. Further, the decontamination acfivity
conducted at the DUSA NDP is an industrial process.
D. Further, "pollufion" in UCA 19-5-102 (9) is defined as (emphasis added):
"... any man-made or man-induced alteration of the chemical, physical, biological, or
radiological integrity of any waters of the state, unless the alteration is necessary for
the public health and safety."
Page 9
2. As a result of these findings, it is clear that the DUSA NDP facility has a potenfial to
contaminate groundwater and is therefore regulated under the Water Quality Act. As a
result, DRC review and approval of its engineering design and constmction was required
before DUSA put the facility into use. Part I.H.4(a) for failure to submit an updated DMT
Monitoring Plan within 30 days of Permit issuance, or by Febmary 19, 2010.
Reason: DUSA submitted a revised DMT Plan on March 12, 2010; however the DMT plan
was due within 30 days of Permit issuance, or by Febmary 19, 2010.
3. Part I.H.4(b) for failure to submit engineering drawings for the steel liner and leak
detection system and receive Executive Secretary approval before liner constmction.
Reason: During an October 8, 2009 inspection, DRC staff observed that DUSA had
constmcted the NDP steel liner and leak detection system before receiving design approval
from the Executive Secretary.
4. Part I.H.4(c) for failure to provide at least a 10 calendar day prior notice of the hydrostatic
test that verifies that the steel liner and leak detection system perform in accordance with
the approved drawings, and to allow a DRC inspector to be present during the test.
Reason: In a submittal of March 12, 2009 DUSA reported that they had conducted a
hydrostafic test between Febmary 9 - 11, 2010. Said results were certified by a Utah-licensed
Professional Engineer. However, no prior nofification was provided by DUSA of this test, so
as to allow DRC staff to witness it.
5. Part I.H.4(d) for failure to refrain from use of the New Decontaminafion Pad until after
Executive Secretary approval of the as-built drawings.
Reason: During an inspection of the White Mesa Mill on May 4, 2010, DRC staff observed
that the New Decontamination Pad had been placed into service in that semi-tmcks and trailers
were being washed. At that time and to date, no approval to use the New Decontamination
Pad had been issued by the Executive Secretary. Also, the as-built drawings have not yet been
approved by the Executive Secretary.
ATTACHMENT 1
DUSA NEW DECONTAMINATION PAD (NDP)
MAY 20, 2009 DUSA DRAWINGS OF NDP
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
AUGUST 6, 2009
State of Utah
JON M. HUNTSMAN, JR.
Governor
GARY HERBERT
Lieutenant Governor
Department of
Environmental Quality
Amanda Smith
Acting E.xecutive Director
DFVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
Dane L. Finerfrock
Direcror
August 6, 2009
CERTIFIED MAIL
(Retum Receipt Requested)
David C. Frydenlund
Vice President Regulatory Affairs and Counsel
Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (DUSA)
1050 Seventeenth Street, Suite 950
Denver, CO 80265
Dear Mr. Frydenlund:
SUBJECT: June 5, 2009 DUSA Letter, White Mesa Uranium Mill Ground Water Discharge
Permit No. UGW370004 - New Decontamination Pad [NDP]; May 20, 2009,
DUSA Drawings of NDP; Request for Information
We have reviewed the subject drawings of the New Decontamination Pad system. Our review is
focused on the concrete settling tank system (CST). The CST is to be operated as an approved
best available technology (BAT) facility. We have the following comments:
A. DRC proposed modifications to paragraph r) in Attachments - Proposed Modifications to the
DMT Plan found in the letter dated June 29, 2009 by Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (hereafter
"DUSA"):
1. Modify the Daily Inspection Form (found in Section VII) to include a location on the form
to record the daily visual inspection information for presence of fluid in all leak detection
system (LDS) vertical inspection portals for the three chambers in the concrete settling
tank system for the decontamination pad.
2. On a quarterly basis submit with the DMT Performance Standard Monitoring Report a
summary of the daily visual inspecfions for the quarter for the presence of fluid in all LDS
vertical inspection portals for the primary and secondary containment for the three
chambers in the concrete settling tank system for the decoiitaminafion pad. The report will
also include an electronic or hard copy of daily inspection forms forthe quarter and
reporting of any BAT failures for the decontamination pad.
168 North 1950 West • Salt Uke City, UT
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144850 • Salt Uke City. UT 84114-4850
Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • T.D.D. [phone]
\vww.fJeq.utah..iiov
Printed on 100% recycled paper
Page 2
3. Should any fluid be observed in any of the LDS vertical inspection portals for the three
chambers in the concrete settling tank system for the decontamination pad, the
decontamination pad well be immediately taken out of service and be reported to the
Executive Secretary as required in Part l.G.3(a) of the Permit (see below).
Permit Part l.G.3(a): Failure to Maintain DMT or BAT Required by Pennit
a) Permittee to Provide Information - in the event that the Permittee fails to maintain
DMT or BAT or otherwise fails to meet DMT or BAT standards as required by the
permit, the Permittee shall submit to the Executive Secretary a notification and
description ofthe failure according to R317-6-6.16( C)( 1). Notification shall be given
orally within 24 hours of the Permittee's discovery of the failure of DMT or BAT, and
shall be followed up by written notification, including the information necessary to
make a determination under R317-6-6.16(C)(2), within five days ofthe Permittee's
discovery of the failure of best available technology.
B. Regarding Design issues:
4. Will the transmissivity of the compressed geonet, under fully loaded conditions,
significantly impede the flow of any horizontal flow of water through the geonet to the
monitoring locafions? Please demonstrate that the compressed geonet, under fully loaded
conditions will not significantly affect the flow of any leakage to the LDS monitoring pipe
locations.
5. The permeability of the concrete for the CST needs to be determined. The permeability of
the concrete can be estimated by analyzing the concrete mix design, as discussed in the
publication of the Portland Cement Association, Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures,
EBOOl, 13"^ Ed., and other field and sampling methods. We recommend the first method
be used, and the calculation for the estimated permeability of the concrete be submitted for
review and approval.
6. Sheet 3 of the drawings indicate the CST subgrade is to be prepared level. The as-built
elevations and grades of the concrete floors and elevations of the walls of the CST must be
submitted for review and approval.
7. With respect to the above determination, the CST leakage monitoring pipes must be placed
at the locations of the lowest floor elevation within each chamber of the CST. Please
revise the as-built drawings to show the new locations of the CST leakage monitoring
pipes and submit the revised drawings for review and approval.
8. Related to the above, the upper and lower elevations of the water level measuring pipes at
these new locations mentioned above must be determined and shown on the final as-built
drawings.
9. The details of the overiap of the steel liner cover over the exterior CST concrete walls,
with a specified drip type edging, is not shown on the drawings. The design of the edging
must be so that it prevents intmsion of precipitation and wash water into the space between
the steel cover and the concrete surfaces. Please revise the as-built drawings to show the
Page 3
details of a specific drip type edging over the exterior CST walls, which meets the
foregoing criteria, and submit the revised drawings for review and approval.
10. The exterior edges of the installed steel liner cover over.the CST must be tested to
demonstrate a "roofing" ability, as discussed in item 9 above. Please submit the results of
this testing for review and approval.
11. It is recommended DUSA perform a hydrostatic test on the steel liner prior to installation.
This test should be done outside the CST, before the steel liner is installed, so leaks can be
easily observed and repaired. Please provide an appropriate standardized and industry
approved method for this testing (e.g. ASTM), for DRC review and approval.
Please review the above comments, and submit the requested information. If you have any
questions on the above, please contact me.
SinoBTely,
i)ren B. Morton, P.G.
lanager, Geotechnical Services Section
LBM:DAR:DH:dr
F:\dnipp\DUSA\GWDPernut\Deeon Pad Monitoring & Tech Cmts7-2009.doc
File: IUC04.01 As-Builts: New DeConPad at SE Cor Ore Pad 2009
ATTACHMENT 2
NOVEMBER 16, 2009 DUSA LETTER
DUSA NEW DECONTAMINATION PAD (NDP)
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
FEBRUARY 4, 2009
State of Utah
JONM. HUNTSMAN, JR.
Governor
GARY HERBERT
Lieutenant Governor
Department of
Environmental Quality
Amanda Smith
Acting Execurive Direclor
DFVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
Dane L Finerfrock
Di'rerror
Febmary 4, 2009
CERTIFIED MAIL
(Retum Receipt Requested)
David C. Frydenlund
Vice President Regulatory Affairs and Counsel
Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (DUSA)
1050 Seventeenth Street, Suite 950
Denver, CO 80265
Dear Mr. Frydenlund:
SUBJECT: November 16, 2009 DUSA Letter, White Mesa Uranium Mill Ground Water
Discharge Permit No. UGW370004 - New Decontamination Pad [NDP]; Request
for Information
We have reviewed the subject response from DUSA dated November 16, 2009. As t)efore, our
review is focused on the concrete settling tank system (CST). The CST is to be operated as an
approved best available technology (BAT) facility. The comments given below retain the same
numbering order as in subject letter:
A. DRC proposed modifications to paragraph r) in Attachments - Proposed Modifications to the
DMT Plan found in the letter dated June 29, 2009 by Denison Mines (USA) Corp.:
1. Modify the Daily Inspection Form (found in Section VII) to include a location on the form
to record the daily water level (depth) inspection information for presence of fluid in all
leak detection system (LDS) vertical inspection portals for each of the three chambers in
the concrete settling tank system for the decontamination pad. Said inspection will be
made by physically measuring the depth to water with an electrical sounding tape/device.
Water level depths will be recorded to the nearest 0.01 foot.
2. On a quarterly basis submit with the DMT Performance Standard Monitoring Report a
summary of the daily water level (depth) inspections for the quarter for the presence of
fluid in all LDS vertical inspection portals for each of the three chambers in the concrete
settling tank system for the decontamination pad. The report will also include an
electronic or hard copy of daily inspection forms for the quarter and reporting of any BAT
failures for the decontamination pad.
168 Nonh 1950 West • Salt Uke City, UT
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144850 • Salt Uke City, UT 84114-4850
Telephone [phone] - Fax [phone] • T.D.D. [phone]
www.deq.uiah.gov
Primed on 100* recycled paper
Page 2
3. Please revise the DMT/BAT Monitoring Plan to include a performance standard for
depth to water in the above mentioned observation pipes, such that the water level shall
not exceed a depth equivalent to 0.1 foot above the concrete floor at any time.
4. Please provide a revised copy of the DMT/BAT Monitoring Plan in its entirety, for
review and approval.
B. Regarding Design issues:
4. No Comment.
5. Permeability of the CST Concrete. The estimated permeability values shown appear to be
in error. The range of permeabilities provided all appear to be too high. For example, the
permeability provided using a 28-day concrete cure time is 1 X 10'^ m^. This value
appears to correspond to a permeability, of about 75 cm/sec. That permeability value
corresponds to very permeable gravel or coarse sand, which is not an approvable value.
An approvable estimate for the concrete permeability needs to correspond to the actual
estimated curing time. Permeability of concrete provided by the Engineering Toolbox'
shows a typical permeability, "k," of normal strength Portland cement concrete to be about
1 X 10''° cm/second, with k given in units of velocity. This value for k is per the equation
v = k-i , as provided by Corbitt.^
A revised permeability estimate needs to be submitted. Please include the estimated time
for curing of the concrete, corresponding to the revised permeability value.
6. The As-Built Drawings. The DUSA letter of November 16, 2009 states, "Please see the
attached revised as-built drawings, which indicate the as-built elevations and grades of the
concrete floors and elevations of the walls of the Concrete Settling Tank (CST)."
No elevations (famsl) are given on the drawings provided. Please provide all current
changes to the drawings, including the elevations requested in the paragraph above. For
the observation ports the survey elevations should include elevations of the concrete floor
surface directly below the monitoring ports, and the elevation of the top of the access pipes
(cap removed). Please label a complete set of the drawings "as-built," and submit for
review and approval.
7. Location of the CST Leakage Monitoring Pipes. It appears the CST monitoring ports have
not changed location, per the submitted drawings. Please confirm that the CST floor is
flat.
8. No Comment.
http://www.engineeringtooll)ox.com/concrete-properties-d_ 1223.html
Corbitt, Robert 1990, Handbook of Environmental Engineering. McGraw-Hill p. 5.42.
Page 3
9. No Comment.
10. No Comment.
11. In the DUSA letter of November 16, 2009 it is stated that "DUSA intends to perform a
hydrostatic test [on the steel liner] commencing on December 1, 2009."
Please provide DRC the results of this testing, and ensure they are certified by a Utah
licensed Professional Engineer.
Please provide the formation requested above, so that the review may proceed forward. If you
have any questions on the above, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Ldj^n B. Morton, P.G.
Manager, Geotechnical Services Section
LBM:DAR:DH:d.r.
F:\drapp\DUSA\GWDPermit\RF12 NDP Monitor&Tech 2-4-2010.doc
File: Documentum
ATTACHMENTS
DUSA WHITE MESA MILL
DRC INSPECTION - NEW DECONTAMINATION PAD
5/4/2010
Photo 1. New Decontamination Pad - (5/4/2010) Semi-truck and trailer enter the pad
to be decontaminated. Photo taken looking north.
Photo 2. New Decontamination Pad - (5/4/2010) White Mesa Mill Personal are in the
process of decontaminating the semi-truck and trailer. Photo taken looking north.
Photo 3. New Decontamination Pad - (5/4/2010) White Mesa Mill Personal are in the
process of decontaminating the semi-truck and trailer. Photo taken looking north.
Photo 4. New Decontamination Pad - (5/4/2010) The new decontamination pad after
the semi-truck has been decontaminated. Photo taken looking north.
Photo 5. New Decontamination Pad - (5/4/2010) The new decontamination pad after
the semi-truck has been decontaminated. Photo taken looking south.
Photo 6. East Side of the New Decontamination Pad -(5/4/2010) Wastewater is stored
in steel lined concrete tanks. Photo taken looking north.
Photo 7. East Side of the New Decontamination Pad -(5/4/2010) Water is being
returned to the steel lined concrete tanks after decontaminating of the semi-truck and
trailer. Photo taken looking east.
Photo 8. East Side of the New Decontamination Pad -(5/4/2010) Supply water for the
new decontamination pad is pumped from Recapture Reservoir. Photo taken looking
east.
ATTACHMENT 4
DUSA NEW DECONTAMINATION PAD (NDP)
MARCH 12, 2010 DUSA RESPONSE LETTER
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
MAY 10, 2009
StateofUtah
JON M. HUNTSMAN, JR.
Governor
GARY HERBERT
Lieutenant Governor
Department of
Environmental Quality
Amanda Smith
Acting Executive Director
DFVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
Dane L. Finerfrock
Direclor
May 10,2009
CERTIFIED MAIL
(Retum Receipt Requested) ,
David C. Frydenlund
Vice President Regulatory Affairs and Counsel
Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (DUSA)
1050 Seventeenth Street, Suite 950
Denver, CO 80265
Dear Mr. Frydenlund:
SUBJECT: March 12, 2010 DUSA Response Letter, While Mesa Uranium Mill Ground Water
Discharge Permit No. UGW370004 - New Decontamination Pad [NDP]; Proposed White
Mesa Mill Tailings Management System and Discharge Mimmization Technology
(DMT)Monitoring Plan (DMT Plan) 3/10 Revision: Denison-9; February 4, 2010 DRC
Letter on the NDP; Request for Information
We have reviewed the subject response letter from DUSA dated March 12, 2010. Our review of this
response follows the same outline given in the DUSA letter. The outline provided two sections. Section 1
below reviews the DUSA response to the subject DRC letter dated February 4, 2009 (actual chron. date,
Febmary 4, 2010). Section 2 reviews the information DUSA provided in the subject letter regarding the
current Ground Water Discharge Permit requirements for the NDP found in Parts I.H.4 and I.H.5.
Contrary to the statement on page 4 of the subject DUSA letter, DUSA is not authorized to use the NDP
without prior written authorization from the Executive Secretary. For details, see Part I.H.4 of the
currently approved Ground Water Discharge Permit.
Section 1.
Our review is in this part regards the concrete settling tank system (CST). The CST is to be operated as an
approved best available technology (BAT) facility. The subject letters above followed a numbering
system, which is used in our comments listed below:
A. Regarding Items 1 -4 in the subject DRC Letter dated Febmary 4, 2009, DUSA provided a
compound response, to address these items, and stated that:
"Included as Attachment A to this letter is the draft White Mesa Mill Tailings Management System
and Discharge Minimization Technology (DMT) Monitoring Plan, 3/10 Revision: Denison-9 (the
"DMT Plan"). The DMT Plan incorporates the foregoing requirements, as such requirements were
modified by correspondence dated March 10, 2010 from DRC staff, as well as the requirements set
out in Part I.H.4 of the GWDP. The attached [subject] DMT Plan is marked to indicate changes
168 North 1950 West • Sail Uke City, UT
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144850 • Salt Uke City, UT 84114-4850
Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • T,D.D. [phone]
•www.deq.uiah.gov
Printed on 100% recycled paper ;
David C. Frydenlund
May 10, 2010
Page 2
over the previous draft submitted to DRC.
"Also, included as Attachment B to this letter, for Executive Secretary Review and Approval, is
the draft White Mesa Uranium Mill Contingency Plan, 3.10 Revision: DUSA-2 (the "Contingency
Plan"), which incorporates the requirements of Part l.H.4.(2) of the GWDP. The attached
Contingency Plan is marked to indicate changes over the previous draft submitted to DRC."
Item 1: In response to DRC's request, in the proposed DMT Plan 3/10 Revision: Denison-9, Appendix A,
in the Weekly Tailings Inspection section, page 29, a DMT Plan form has been changed to include
checking all three of the CST leak detection system (LDS) monitoring portals to determine the
following:
a. Whether the LDS is wet or dry.
b. The depth of any liquid in each LDS portal.
On page 10 of said plan, a new subsection 3.1 .e is titled, "Decontamination Pads." This subsection
indicates inspection will be made by physically measuring the depth to water with an electrical
sounding tape/device, and that the water level depths will be recorded to the nearest 0.01 foot, as
DRC requested.
Item 2: In accordance with DRC's request, in the proposed subject DMT Plan, Section 8.2 titled, "DMT
Reports," DUSA will submit written quarterly reports, which will include the weekly check for the
presence of any fluid in any CST LDS portal, and measurement of any water level in the portals
during the quarter.
However, Section 8.2.b of the subject DMT Plan states that, ".. .a summary of the daily water level
(depth) inspections for the quarter..." will be submitted in the reports. This daily frequency must
be changed to weekly, to be in agreement with the weekly frequency described in the DMT Plan,
as mentioned in the paragraph above.
Per an earlier telephone conversation with you, the original records of all weekly readings in the
LDS portals will be retained on site, rather than copies of weekly inspections being submitted with
the quarterly reports. The weekly depth to water level readings will be presented in a summary
table in the Quarterly Reports. Retention of the weekly field records shall comply with Part II.H of
the Permit, and the DRC shall be given access to review and copy of said records pursuant to Part
U.K.
Item 3: DRC requested that DUSA, ".. .revise the DMT/BAT Monitoring Plan to include a performance
standard for depth to water in the above mentioned observation pipes, such that the water level
shall not exceed a depth equivalent to 0.1 foot above the concrete floor at any time." Please
provide a minimum depth to water performance criteria for each observation pipe that is equivalent
to a standing water head of 0.1 foot above the concrete floor for each observation pipe. Section
3.1 .e.D ofthe subject DMT Plan includes this requirement.
Item 4: DRC requested that DUSA, "Please provide a revised copy of the DMT/BAT Monitoring Plan in
its entirety, for review and approval." A "red-line copy" of the plan was provided. However, a
final black lined copy of an adiusted DMT Plan will still need to be provided.
B. Regarding Design issues:
David C. Frydenlund
May 10, 2010
Page 3
5. Permeability ofthe CST Concrete. A revised estimate for the range of permeability for the as-built
CST concrete was submitted. The estimate was done by Precision Systems Engineering, submitted
as Attachment C to the subject March 12, 2010 DUSA Letter. The estimated permeability range is
1.7 X 10~'° cm/second to 0.45 X 10"'° cm/second, corresponding to curing times of 1 week to 10
years respectively. This permeability range is acceptable for the CST concrete, and this issue is
resolved.
6. As-Built Drawings. We requested a set of labeled "as-buih" drawings complete with some specific
elevations. Drawings labeled "As-Buih Drawings" were provided as Attachment D to the subject
March 12, 2010 DUSA Letter. These drawings, on Sheets one and six, show elevations from
specific cross-sections ofthe CST. On sheet one, in Section 7-E the top of a CST floor in one
settling basin is shown to be at 5583.5 feet amsl and the top of the exterior wall to be at 5589.5 feet
amsl. On sheet six, Section 9-F shows the top of a CST observation port access pipe, with cap
removed, to be 5589.8 feet amsl.
Please confirm:
a) . The concrete floor is at the same elevation in each settling basin,
b) . that the top of the exterior wall is at the same elevation for all 3 settling basins, and
c) , that the top ofthe access pipe (with cap removed) is at the same elevation in all 3 settling
basins.
Altematively, provide unique elevations for each of the elements listed above.
7. The CST Floor. We requested DUSA please confirm that the CST floor is flat. DUSA responded
that, "the bottom of all three CST compartments is flat," in the subject letter of March 12, 2010.
8. No Comment.
9. No Comment.
10. No Comment.
11. The hydrostatic test certificate, as provided in Attachment E of the subject DUSA letter of March
12, 2010, does not state the hydraulic head on the steel liner in the individual compartments of the
CST during the apparent 48-hour hydrostatic test. Please explain how the hydraulic head used
during the test was representative (or conservatively higher) than the expected operating head.
What was the status of any water being held during the test?
Section 2.
Our review in this section regards the information DUSA provided in the subject letter pertaining to the
current Ground Water Discharge Permit requirements for the NDP and the existing decontamination pad
(EDP). These requirements are respectively found in the Parts I.H.4 and I.H.5 of the Permit. DUSA
submitted the subject revised DMT Plan and a revised Contingency Plan to meet these requirements ofthe
Ground Water Discharge Permit.
a. Regarding Part I.H.4 of the Current Permit:
1. pertaining to Part I.H.4.a.2. the upcoming revision of the Contingency Plan must include
provisions for corrective actions and timelines for completion thereof, if cracks or other
physical discrepancies are observed on the concrete wash pad.
David C. Frydenlund
May 10, 2010
Page 4
2. Paragraph 3.1.e.i.F of the subiect DMT Plan must include a provision that soil and debris
will be removed from the existing decontamination pad (EDP) immediately prior to
inspection ofthe concrete wash pad for cracking.
b. Regarding Part I.H.5 of the Current Permit:
1. Paragraph 3.1.e.ii.A of the subiect DMT Plan must include a provision that soil and debris
will be removed from the EDP immediately prior to inspection ofthe concrete wash pad
for cracking.
2. Paragraphs 6.5.b of the subiect DMT Plan, should also include detailed provisions and
deadhnes to examine the steel tank for visible leakage and bubbling indicating leakage
with respect to the annual removal of tank water and sediment to inspect for visible cracks
arid corrosion.
3. This comment regards the Aimual Report form for both Decontamination Pads, on page 35
of the subject DMT Plan. For continuity to prevent omissions, we recommend the Annual
Decontammation Pad Inspection form (on page 22). which pertains to the annual report,
should also include the stated requirements of paragraph 8.2.d of the proposed DMT Plan
and a summarv ofthe weekly inspections.
Please review the above comments, and respond in writing, submitting the requested information. We
request a revised red-line copy and a clean black-line copy of the DMT and Contingency Plans be
submitted for approval. Please provide the formation requested above, so that the review may proceed
forward. If you have any questions on the above, please contact me or Dave Rupp.
erely.
jLoren B. Morton, P.G.
'Manager, Geotechnical Services Section
LBM:DAR:d.r.
F:\drupp\DUSA\GWDPermit\RFI3NDP5-2010.doc
File: Documentum