DRC-2010-005084 - 0901a068801c4636

y
State of Utah
GARY R. HERBERT
Gincrnin
GREG BELL
Lieutenant Governor
Department of
Environmental Quality
Amanda Smith
Execiilive Director
DIVISION OF RADI.ALTION CONTROL
Riisty Lundberg
Director
0RC-2O1O'OO5O84
MEMORANDUM
TO: File
THROUGH: Loren Morton, P.O., Manager
FROM: Tom Rushing, P.G. '^;< ^l2<f/lO
September 1, 2010 DATE:
SUBJECT
Introduction
Denison Mines, December 30, 2009 Nitrate Gontamination Investigation Report
for the White Mesa Uranium Mill Site, Blanding, Utah: DRC Review Findings
This memo is to summarize the DRC review of the Denison Mines (USA) Corp December 30,
2009 Nitrate Contamination Investigation Report (CIR). The CIR was submitted to comply with
the DRC Stipulated Consent Agreement UGW09-03 (Consent Agreement) dated January 28,
2009. The Consent Agreement refers specifically to the requirements of the Utah Administration
Code (UAC) R317-6-6.15(D) "Contamination Investigation and Corrective Action Plan-
Requirements" which outlines requirements for: 1. Characterization of the pollution; 2.
Characterization of the facility; 3. Report of data used and data gaps; 4. Endangerment
assessment, and; 5. Other information required by the Executive Secretary. The Stipulated
Consent Agreement also contains an itemized list of agreements between DUSA and DRC
concerning due dates of deliverables as well as required conformance of deliverables with
applicable rules, regulations and guidance specified therein.
This memo is organized as follows:
I - Chronological Summary of Nitrate Investigation Reports and Letters
II- Review of the CIR in Comparison with UAC R317-6-6.15.D
III - Review of the CIR to Determine Compliance with the Stipulated Consent Agreement,
Docket No. UGW 09-03
Note that the DRC review comments and additional needs for the CIR, which will be forwarded to
DUSA under the language of the Consent Agreement by the Executive Secretary (Notice of
Additional Required Action) are included in the discussion below each header. Also, since some
of the issues are duplicated from the UAC requirements to the Consent Agreement, some of the
105 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]
www.deq.ulnh.f^oY
Printed on 100% recycled paper
DUSA December 2009 Nitrate Contamination Investigation Report
DRC Review Findings
Page 2
language in the discussion has also been duplicated.
I ~ Summary of Nitrate Investigation Reports and Letters
September 30, 2008 - DRC Letter to David Frydenlund (Denison) signed by Dane Finerfrock
requesting a voluntary plan and schedule to investigate and remediate the nitrate plume
November 19, 2008 - Denison Mines Preliminary Source Review Report for Nitrate in
Groundwater at the White Mesa Mill, by Memorandum from Jo Ann Tischler
November 21, 2008 - Denison Mines Plan and Schedule for Nitrate Contamination Investigation
Report and Groundwater Corrective Action Plan, Prepared by Intera.
January 28, 2009 - DRC/DUSA Stipulated Consent Agreement, Docket No. UGW 09-03, signed
and dated by both parties January 27, 2009
December 30, 2009 - Denison Mines, Nitrate Contamination Investigation Report, White Mesa
Uranium Mill Site Blanding, Utah, Prepared by Intera.
May 28, 2010 - White Mesa Uranium Mill Nitrate Monitoring Report, 1'* Quarter 2010, Prepared
by Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
II " Review of the CIR in Comparison with UAC R317-6-6.15.D Contamination
Investigation and Corrective Action Plan -- Requirements
I. UAC R317-6-6.15.D.1(a)(1). Contamination Investigation - Tlxe contamination
investigation shall include a characterization of pollution, a characterization of the facility, a data
report, and, if the Corrective Action Plan proposes standards under R317-6-6.15. F. 2. or Alternate
Corrective Action Concentration Limits higher than the ground water quality standards, an
endangerment assessment.
a. The characterization of pollution shall include a description of:
(1) The amount, form, concentration, toxicity, environmental fate and transport, and other
significant characteristics of substances present, for both ground water contaminants and any
contributing surficial contaminants;
The contaminants are identified as nitrate and chloride in the perched (Burro Canyon) aquifer at
the Mill site. The CIR includes generalized discussion of the toxicity of both contaminants, and a
general (non technical) discussion of the reactivity of the pollutants.
Contrary to UAC R317-6-6.15.D(l)(a)(I), the CIR does not relate the contaminant concentrations
detected in the ground water monitoring to local toxicity potential based on potential
concentrations at downstream receptors. DUSA states that this is not necessary since the source
of the contamination appears to be upgradient and unassociated with the Mill. At a minimum, the
CER should discuss the nitrate concentration distribution in perspective of the State Ground Water
Quality Standard, 10 mg/1.
DUSA December 2009 Nitrate Contamination Investigation Report
DRC Review Findings
Page 3
Per discussion below, DRC finds the conclusion of an upgradient nitrate / chloride source to be
unsubstantiated with the current CIR and is requiring additional justification to support the claim.
If the claim cannot be supported then DRC will require a full endangerment analysis and fate and
transport to be included with the facility corrective action plan.
2. UAC R317-6-6.15.D.1(a)(2) The ureal and vertical extent of the contaminant
concentration, distribution and chemical make- up;
Per initial findings related to plume delineation it was noted that DRC agreed that the plume is
fairly well defined and bounded on the west, south and east but needed additional monitoring to
define the northern boundary (and may require additional ground water wells as the plume moves
downgradient). DUSA has since installed the nitrate monitoring well network as discussed below
to assist in the delineation of the plume.
Based on monitoring data at these wells DUSA has drawn the plume boundaries to the north of
the mill facility and claims that the source must be upgradient. DRC currently does not see this
argument as supported, however, as discussed in the memo sections below, and will require more
study to justify these claims (options to support the claim may include isotopic analysis and
additional geochemical analysis to support the DUSA claims that the contamination is chemically
related).
The summaries below discuss the current monitoring well network used to defined the plume as
well as DRC need for well completion an logging information.
Review of the Ground Water Monitoring Well Network
A monitoring well network was installed by DUSA to investigate the plume boundaries and
concentrations. DRC noted that well completion diagrams and logs have not been submitted for
review. It is assumed that the well screens fully penetrate the Burro Canyon Aquifer. DRC will
request completion diagrams / reports for the wells in the "Additional Required Action" letter to
DUSA.
The nitrate wells are designated by prefix TWN and consist of 19 wells (TWN-I through TWN-
19) which are located predominantly upgradient from the confines of the mill, extending approx 1
mile above the northern fence line of the Mill. Wells were placed in a downgradient north-
westerly orientation which approximates the groundwater elevation contours for the area
(hydrologic divide due to the Coral Canyon Drainage and ground water mounding at the mill),
although regional groundwater is flowing southwest?? towards the Recapture Creek drainage.
DRC also noted that nitrate and chloride data from existing monitoring wells, chloroform,
monitoring wells and piezometers were used to characterize the locations of the plume. DRC
noted that of the 19 installed TWN wells only 5 showed concentrations which were above 5 mg/L
(TWN-2, TWN-3, TWN-9, TWN-17, and TWN-19). Most of the TWN wells were installed well
north of the mill northern fence line, and it appears that the intention of these wells was to
determine if the well extends upgradient. Issues regarding the concentration plots and plume
delineation are included in the pollution characterization section below.
DUSA December 2009 Nitrate Contamination Investigation Report
DRC Review Findings
Page 4
DUSA utilized data from 3 monitoring well networks, as well as data from 4 facility piezometers.
Specifically, DUSA used data from the tailings cell monitoring network (ground water well MW
series, 21 wells), data from the chloroform monitoring well network (ground water well TW4
series, 24 wells), data from the newly installed (2009 installation) nitrate & chloride wells (ground
water well TWN series, 19 wells). These ground water well networks are additionally
summarized on Table 2. below:
Table 1. Monitoring Wells Used to Determine Nitrate and Chloride Concentration Contours
Monitoring Well
Numbers (Series) Well Network General Locations Number of Wells
MW-1,2, 3,3A, 5, il,
12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19,
20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,
27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32
Tailings Cell Mostly Downgradient
from Tailings Cells,
also Installations
Crossgradient and
Upgradient
24 (includes 2 dual
purpose
tailings/chloroform
wells)
TW4-lto T4-25 (note
TW-15,TW-17are
dual purpose wells
with the MW-26 and
MW-32 wells and are
included in both
counts)
Chloroform Plume
Monitoring
Concentrated on the
west portion of the
mill site in
conjunction with
Chloroform Plume
delineation
25 (includes 2 dual
purpose
tailings/chloroform
wells)
TWN-i to TWN-19 Nitrate and Chloride
Plume Monitoring
Primarily Upgradient 19
Total Wells - 66
Thus the total ground water monitoring network consists of 66 ground water monitoring wells and
4 piezometers.
The permit requirement for monitoring frequency of the Tailings Monitoring Wells is currently
based on the calculated linear velocity for each well.
DRC has noted that an "As Built" report has not been submitted for the TWN series wells and will
request that DUSA submit the report as part of the coiTCspondence for this project. Specifically,
DRC will request the following which appear to missing from the report and are needed for DRC
review:
1. Geologic Logs
2. Well completion details - per requirements of the DUSA Groundwater Permit Parts I.E.4
and I.F.6
3. Aquifer Permeability Contour Maps (contours based on logarithmic equivalent
peirneability)
4. Hydrogeologic cross-sections
5. Structural contour map for Brushy Basin Shale Member (upper contact).
DUSA December 2009 Nitrate Contamination Investigation Report
DRC Review Findings
Page 5
DRC Comments Regarding the TWN Series Wells
Per the objective to delineate the plume boundary on the north side of the Mill, DRC noted that 15
of the 19 TWN series wells are located hydraulically upgradient from the mill site (north). It was
noted that only 5 of the 19 TWN wells showed analysis results for nitrate above 5 mg/L.
With the data currently available, DRC does not see that any plume related contamination
north of TWN 18 has been supported. Specifically, per DRC review of down-gradient (south
of the mill) concentrations of Nitrate and Chloride, it is unclear where the leading edge and
trailing edge of a plume would be located. Per the 4"^-Quarter 2009 data at down-gradient well
MW-20 and MW-22 the concentrations were 6.2 mg/L and 3.8 mg/L for Nitrate respectively.
These results are similar to the upgradient results for nitrate wells around the Frog Pond area.
DRC noted that the northern nitrate plume delineation (closed contours) were based on a
single sample result at wells TW-19 and TWN-17 which were both below 10 mg/L. Those
results were 7.4 mg/L and 6.7 mg/L respectively. Also per DRC perspective, the closed 5
mg/L concentration contour around the Frog Pond is highly subjective and is based on
insubstantial data.
Thus no clear slug behavior is evident to the DRC, as claimed in the CIR. Nor does it appear that
upgradient concentrations of Nitrate and Chloride are above background since downgradient
concentrations are within the range of upgradient concentrations.
Additionally, DRC notes that the ground water flow in the area of TWN 18 is almost directly
west; due to groundwater mounding from the wildlife ponds and that such contamination could be
cross-gradient from onsite sources such as the SAG Mill Leach Field.
3. UAC R317-6-6.15.D.l.(a)(3) The extent to which contaminant substances have
migrated and are expected to migrate.
DRC noted that the isoconcentration contour map submitted with the report is based on
groundwater quality data from 3 different sampling events in September October and November
2009. The Chloroform Wells were collected in September, the Tailings Cell Wells were collected
in October, and the Nitrate Wells were collected in October and November. Additionally,
samples were collected from piezometers in October. DRC noted that a single laboratory result
from several non-contemporaneous samples was used to draw the nitrate and chloride
concentration contours on the groundwater elevation maps (aerial overlays) submitted with the
December 30, 2009 report. Appendix 4 lists the data result values and dates collected which were
used to generate the nitrate and chloride contours in the CIR. This is a violation of Item 6.A.V of
the January 27, 2009 Stipulated Consent Agreement (SCA). DRC noted that not even the
sampling of the TWN series wells alone met the "within 5 calendar days" requirement of the
Consent Agreement part 6.A.v.
The use of non-contemporaneous groundwater quality data to create the isoconcentration maps
and plume area delineations is potentially misleading. Data used for the pollutant characterization
DUSA December 2009 Nitrate Contamination Investigation Report
DRC Review Findings
Page 6
has to be contemporaneous (within 5 days of each other) for all wells used per the SCA as well as
common scientific method and practice.
Use of time series maps as well as geometric averages (based on a normal data set) would also be
helpful to provide a more representative depiction of contamination areas versus background
concentrations as well as a representative depiction of concentration distributions and
concentration centers. One example illustrating of bias from a single data result for source
analysis is the difference between the 11/2/2009 and 3/24/2010 Nitrate results at well TWN-2
which increased from 20.8 to 62.1 mg/1 (with a similar corresponding increase in Chloride
concentration).
4. UAC R317-6-6.15.D.l.(b)(l). The characterization of the facility shall include
descriptions of:
(1) Contaminant substance mixtures present and media of occurrence;
Per the DRC review it was noted that nitrate source assessment documentation is located in the
CIR (pp. 4 to 9) as well as in the CIR Attachment 1 (Source Review Report by Jo Ann Tischler)
Section 4.0 (pp. 11 to 21). DRC noted that an onsite source assessment, with detail as required by
the Consent Agreement and Utah Administrative Code, has not been performed.
The CIR does not attempt to quantify nitrogen sources at.the mill or historical contamination
potential based on past operating procedures (which may be different from current conditions).
Per DRC review, the potential for an onsite source has not been eliminated and the investigation
needs to look at onsite sources more comprehensively. The Source Review Report by Tischler
noted that the SAG Leach Field and Main Leach Field should be given a high priority in the
sampling plan (Tischler Source Review Report pp 13). DRC agrees with this determination,
especially in review of recent nitrate concentration increases seen at well TWN-2. However, the
CIR effectively negates these sources and offers no further assessment based on unsubstantiated
claims of an upgradient source.
Per DRC review of the existing data, the SAG Leach Field and other Leach Fields specifically
need additional source investigation as outlined in UAC R317-6 "Facility Characterization"
including contaminant substance mixtures present and media of occun-ence (quantifiable and
historical assessment of these sources).
5. UAC R317-6-6.15.D.1.(b)(2) Hydrogeologic conditions underlying and, upgradient and
downgradient of the facility;
The CIR contains two reports generated by Hydro Geo Chem which outline the hydraulic
testing at the new TWN wells as well as calculations of pore velocities based on the derived
hydraulic conductivities. The derivation of transport averages is reasonable given the current
level of DUSA review, however, if DUSA wants to utilize hydrogeologic transport to justify an
upgradient source, or if DUSA wants to provide more analysis of onsite transport utilizing pore
velocieties then a more robust analysis of these velocities in regards to preferential flow paths etc.
then velocities should be calculated for each well instead of using regional averages per the
DUSA December 2009 Nitrate Contamination Investigation Report
DRC Review Findings
Page 7
current Hydro Geo Chem Report*''*. Also, the development of a isopermeability contour map is
needed for the investigation and will be requested by DRC to be included with the CIR.
A general discussion of the regional geology/hydrogeology for informational purposes, as well as
a discussion of the Hydro Geo Chem calculation of pore velocity (which appears to be average
linear velocity utilizing an average effective porosity) is below:
DRC General Review of Site Geology
Per review of maps and surveys by the Utah Geological Survey and DUSA (via contractors), DRC
noted that the study area is underlain by unconsolidated alluvium and sedimentary bedrock
consisting primarily of sandstone and shales. The uppeiTnost alluvium is primarily aeolian silt and
sand and ranges from 1 to 30 ft thick, however in the direct location of the mill these alluvial
deposits have been removed for tailings cell constmction.
The Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone and the Burro Canyon Formation directly underlie the alluvial
deposits. These combined sandstone units have a thickness of 100 to 140 ft in the study area. The
units are undeformed in the area and dip gently to the south, generally less than 3 degrees.
The Brushy Basin member of the Morrison Formation directly underlies the Burro Canyon in the
area and per the UGS Special Study it was noted that this formation in the area is composed of
mudstones siltstones and claystones with interbedded fine grained sandstones. The formation
serves as an aquitard and does not allow for any field scale horizontal flow. Thus ground water in
the Burro Canyon Formation beneath the mill is considered as a perched aquifer and is subject to
local recharge by surface water as well regional field scale recharge from the upland areas. The
impacts of local surface water recharge on the Burro Canyon Aquifer is evidenced by the ground
water mounding below the mill from the local (unlined) wildlife ponds.
Beneath the Brushy Basin Member are the Westwater Canyon, Recapture and Salt Wash Members
of the Morrison formation and beneath those are the Summerville Formation, Entrada Sandstone
and Navajo Sandstone respectively.
DRC Review of Site Surface and Ground Water Hydrology
Per the discussion above, the uppermost aquifer is in the Burro Canyon Formation and is isolated
from extensive vertically downward or horizontal flow by the low permeable Brushy Basin
Formation which acts as a regional aquitard (the base of the perched aquifer). Ground water
monitoring well screens installed by DUSA generally fully penetrate the Burro Canyon saturated
zone and extend into the upper contact of the Brushy Basin. However, this cannot be confirmed
for the TWN series wells, in that well completion diagrams have yet to be submitted.
Per DRC review of the regional groundwater flow (UGS Study 123) it appears that it is to the
south-west? towards Recapture Creek, however, it is noted that in the area of the mill the
directions are south, south-west, and west. Highly variable flow directions and gradients appear
to be due to the local ground water mounding (Wildlife Pond seepage) as well as pumping wells
installed for chloroform treatment.
DUSA December 2009 Nitrate Contamination Investigation Report
DRC Review Findings
Page 8
A report was prepared for DUSA by Hydro Geo Chem in December 2009*'' which utilizes
available hydrogeologic information from the site, estimates of hydraulic gradients and
intergranular rates of ground water movement to calculate average advective transport velocities
for a hypothetical conservative solute (assumes no decay, hydrodynamic dispersion or diffusion).
The velocities were calculated for areas:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Downgradient from the tailings cells.
Vicinity of the tailings cells.
Eastern Portion of the Tailings Cells where hydrologic impacts are caused by ground
water pumping wells, and.
The northeastern portion of the site.
DRC noted that the northeastern portion calculations used the nitrate contamination investigation
wells (TWN series wells). Table 1 below summarizes the local ground water movement rates as
written in the Hydro Geo Chem Report.
Table 2. Average Linear Ground Water Velocity Calculations Summary from Hydro Geo Chem
General Area # Wells Used/Well
#'s
Average
Hydraulic
Conductivity
Effective
Porosity
Used
Average
Hydraulic
Gradient Used
Reported
Average
Linear
Velocity
(advective
only)
Downgradient of
Tailings Cells
lO/MW-3, MW-5,
MW-17, MW-20,
MW-22, MW-25,
MW-11,MW-12,
MW-14andMW-
15
23.3 ft/year 0.18 0.013 ft/ft 1.7 ft/year
Vicinity of Tailings
Cells
I l/MW-23, MW-
25, MW-27, MW-
28, MW-29, MW-
30, MW-31, MW-
32, TW4-20, TW4-
21 andTW4-22
31 ft/yr 0.18 Not Stated in
Report
DRC Calculated
= 0.026 ft/ft
4.5 ft/year
Eastern Portion of
Tailings Cells
(Chloroform Plume
Pumping Well
Induced)
3/TW4-5, TW4-9
and TW4-1
321 ft/yr 0.18 0.029 mt 52 ft/yr
Northeastern Portion
of Site (TWN Series
Wells)
19/All TWN Series
Wells
54 ft/yr 0.18 Not Stated in
Report
DRC Calculated
= 0.023 ft/ft
7 ft/yr
pumping. This needs lo be clarified in the report.
I to calculate hydraulic gradient was pre
DUSA December 2009 Nitrate Contamination Investigation Report
DRC Review Findings
Page 9
DRC Review of the Hydro Geo Chem Inc. 12/29/2009 Pore Velocity Calculation (10)
DRC has noted that according to the Hydro Geo Chem report the terminology used per the chart
above is "pore velocity", which appears to be a misuse of hydrologic nomenclature. The
equations for pore velocity are below, based on Darcy Flux:
DarcyFlux:
q = (-K/|i)i p=dynamic viscosity
Pore Velocity:
V = q/9 9=porosity
However, per DRC review of the calculations it appears that the calculations are actually for
Darcy Flow (average linear velocity of groundwater) as below:
V = (-K/ne)i ne=effective porosity
Again the Hydro Geo Chem calculations do not consider dispersion, decay, or chemical reactions,
which is conservative.
Per discussion with DRC staff it was noted that in-house calculations for linear velocity have been
conducted well by well to determine appropriate monitoring frequencies as well as potential travel
times for chloroform contaminants to reach downstream receptors.
DRC notes that differences in hydraulic conductivity (K) calculations (from slug tests) has created
large variability in DUSA velocity calculations. The K values used in the Hydro Geo Chem
report were from: 1. Peel Hydraulic Test Results (UMETCO, 1993, Groundwater Study, White
Mesa Facilities, Blanding, UT. Prepared by UMETCO Minerals Corporation and Peel
Environmental Services), 2. Hydraulic Testing 2002 (Hydro Geo Chem Inc. (HGC), 2002,
Hydraulic Testing at the White Mesa Uranium mill Near Blanding, Utah During July 2002), and,
3. Hydro Geo Chem Well Installation and Testing 2005. Derivations of K were calculated
according to the Bouwer and Rice 1976 slug test method for unconfined aquifers.
Per DRC review of the CIR it was noted that an argument related to calculated velocities was
briefly introduced into the report (pp. 17 Contaminant Migration) in order initially to use the
travel time argumentation for the upgradient source. DRC noted however, that the groundwater
travel time calculations in the CIR do not support the claim of an upgradient source (near TWN-
19 or the Frog Pond Area) because the Hydro Geo Chem calculations indicate it would take over
300 years for nitrate and chloride to arrive at monitor well TW4-24 (southwest comer of mill site).
The Hydro Geo Chem calculations for the CIR use a 23 ft/year "pore velocity" calculation which
is higher that the report calculated 7 ft/year as in the table above which does not seem
DUSA December 2009 Nitrate Contamination Investigation Report
DRC Review Findings
Page 10
conservative. The travel time scenario, per the CIR, requires extensive assumptions of multiple
storage areas and large differences in ground water velocity (based on unstudied field conditions).
No aquifer isopermeability contour map was provided in the CIR. Hence, potential
heterogeneities in ground water linear velocity at the TWN series wells have not received
adequate study, and it is premature to make claims of large spacial heterogeneities. If DUSA
wishes to continue this line of argument, the CIR needs to be amended to support the claims.
6. UAC R317-6-6.15.D.1(b)(3) Surface waters in the area;
The CER offers only a generalized description of local surface waters and refers the reader to the
Reclamation Plan, Revision 4.0 for further details.
Descriptions of local surface water as well as the results of surface water quality sampling for
nitrate and chloride at the mill (commencing with the 1^' quarter 2009) need to be included with
the CER. These may be included as an attachment.
7. UAC R317-6-6.15.D.1(b)(4) Climatologic and meteorologic conditions in the area of
the facility;
The CIR offers a brief summary of climate conditions at the mill. No specific information is
included and DRC noted that the meteorological data as submitted in the facility annual
Environmental Report was not incorporated into the CIR as was proposed by DUSA.
DRC does not see the need for detailed meteorological data at this point in the investigation and
will not request additional information now. At a later date, such data may be needed for ground
water or surface water modeling associated with a potential corrective action plan.
8. UAC R317-6-6.15.D.1(b)(5) Type, location and description of possible sources of the
pollution at the facility;
The CIR includes a discussion of potential locations of nitrate contamination at the mill but does
not offer quantitative analysis of these sources based on the present (unjustified) conclusion that
the source is upgradient from the mill. DRC will offer additional options for study to support the
upgradient source including the isotopic chemistry study discussed below. DRC will require the
quantification and additional study of onsite sources in the "Notice of Additional Required
Action" letter to DUSA.
Nitrate Organic/Inorganic Isotopic Geochemistry
Septic tank nitrogen can be distinguished from mineral / industrial nitrogen sources in shallow
ground waters with isotopic analysis. Nitrate from synthetic fertilizers receive oxygen primarily
from the atmosphere which is richer in 5'^0 than biologically formed nitrate which receives two
of the three oxygen atoms from water. Samples showing atmospheric S'^O greater than 5°/oo
indicates an inorganic (e.g. fertilizer, industrial) source, whereas 5 ^O less that 5%o indicates
organic (e.g. septic sources).
DUSA December 2009 Nitrate Contamination Investigation Report
DRC Review Findings
Page 11
It was also noted that organic sources of nitrate will show elevated concentrations of 5'^N over
inorganic sources. Concentrations greater than 10%o 5'^N strongly indicates an organic source
whereas inorganic sources will generally show only minor amounts of 5'^N, generally < 5°/oo-
If DUSA wants to continue to assert that the elevated nitrate contamination on and upgradient of
the White Mesa Mill site was derived from the same source then isotopic analysis needs to be
done to corroborate this claim. The goal of such studies would be to verify similar isotopic
fingerprints or signature beneath and upgradient of the mill.
9. UAC R317-6-6.15.D.l(b)(6) Groundwater withdrawals, pumpage rates, and usage
within a 2-mile radius.
The CIR offers a summary of the groundwater appropriation application within the required radius
as per the Utah State Engineers Office. The CER refers the reader to the Reclamation Plan,
Revision 4.0 for details regarding the applications. It is noted that DRC has received the plan and
it is available in the DEQ E-docs System.
10. UAC R317-6-6.15.D.1(c) The report of data used and data gaps shall include:
(1) Data packages including quality assurance and quality control reports;
(2) .UAC R317-6-6.15.D.1(c)(2) A description of the data used in the report;
(3) . UAC R317-6-6.15.D.1(c)(3) A description of any data gaps encountered, how those gaps
affect the analysis and any plans to fill those gaps.
The CER includes copies of TWN series field sheets for several ground water sampling events as
well as laboratory sheets, including QA/QC evaluation were included with the CIR. DRC will
request that DUSA include a self evaluation of all data used for the nitrate investigation in the
updated report and DRC will provide a comprehensive review of the data conformance with the
review of that report since it will contain additional data and statistical analysis per continuing
required actions resulting from the review of the current CIR. ,
11. UAC R317-6-6.15.D.l(d) The endangerment assessment shall include descriptions of
any risk evaluation necessary to support a proposal for a standard under R317-6-6.15.F.2 or
for an Alternate Corrective Action Concentration Limit.
DUSA did not conduct an endangerment assessment for the CIR, based on the unqualified
conclusion that the sole source is upgradient from the Mill property and was not caused or
contributed by the Mill activities. This issue will be addressed through additional CER activities,
discussed above.
12. UAC R317-6-6.15.D. 1(e) The Contamination Investigation shall include such other
information as the Executive Secretary requires.
Based on the review of the current CIR, DRC will prepare a "Notice of Additional Required
Action," notifying DUSA that additional information is required and pointing out that the
associated consent agreement. Docket No. UGW09-03 is still in effect.
DUSA December 2009 Nitrate Contamination Investigation Report
DRC Review Findings
Page 12
13. UAC R317-6-6.15.D..2 Proposed Corrective Action Plan
DUSA has not met the requirements of Utah Administrative Code R317-6-6.15(D) regarding the
corrective action plan requirements since claims of the source of contamination are not qualified
by adequate data and the overall source assessment arbitrarily eliminates potential sources
(multiple sources) based on the unqualified determination that the contamination under the mill is
due to a slug source from an upgradient source.
Whether or not a Corrective Action Plan is required will be based on further contamination
investigation, including the collection of adequate data to delineate the plume boundaries.
14. UAC R317-6-6.15.D.3 The Contaminant Investigation and Corrective Action Plan must
be performed under the direction, and bear the seal, ofa professional engineer or
professional geologist.
The CIR cover transmittal letter is signed by Harold R. Roberts, P.E. and includes a stamp for P.E.
license number 165838 and associated signatures.
Ill " Review of the CIR to Determine Compliance with the Stipulated Consent Agreement,
Docket No. UGW 09-03
Agreement Items Reviewed:
1. Item 6. A. Hi. All Monitoring wells installed in preparation of the CIR and /or any
Corrective Action Plan shall be permanent and constructed in accordance with UAC
R317-6-6.3(I}(6)
DRC noted that the TWN monitoring well As-Built diagrams and geologic logs were not
submitted with the CIR (as also stated above), although the slug test analysis plots and
calculations of pore water velocities were included as an attachment (Hydro Geo Chem,
12/29/2009). A DRC has since requested the well completion reports as part of a different project,
it was noted that the same Hydro Geo Chem Report was updated in March of 2010 to include the
completion diagrams and logs etc.
DRC will request the updated report be included with the CIR (March 2010) instead of the
12/29/2009 version. The updated report includes the information stated in the review of the TWN
series monitoring well network (Per the Section Above).
2. Item 6.A.iv - All ground water monitoring, sampling and analysis conducted for the CIR
will comply with the currently approved Quality Assurance Plan, mandated by Part
I.E. 1(a) of Denison's Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit, No. UGW370004
The CER includes a copy of the White Mesa Uranium Mill Ground Water Monitoring Quality
Assurance Plan (QAP) Revision 4. Per this review DRC did not specifically review all of the data
to insure conformance with the QAP since the broader issue is currently the continuation of the
CIR to meet the objectives of the Consent Agreement.
DUSA December 2009 Nitrate Contamination Investigation Report
DRC Review Findings
Page 13
It was noted however that copies of TWN series field sheets for several ground water sampling
events as well as laboratory sheets, including QA/QC evaluation were included with the CER.
QA/QC will be evaluated with the ongoing collection of data for the nitrate plume investigation.
DRC notes that DUSA is currently submitting TWN series data result on a quarterly schedule.
3. Item 6.A.V - All shallow aquifer equipotential or isoconcentration maps prepared shall be
based on groundwater head or quality samples that are contemporaneous with one
another: i.e. within 5 calendar days
This item was addressed with the DRC review for compliance with UAC R317-6-
6.15.D.l.(a)(3) above (see comments above). Note that DUSA is non-compliant with the
requirements of the UAC and Permit regarding this issue.
4. Item 6.A.vi - CIR Performance Standards and Objectives - the CIR required by Item 5A
shall meet the following minimum performance standards and objectives upon submittal to
the Executive Secretary on or before January 4, 2010:
a. Nitrate Plume Definition - al nitrate isoconcentration map(s) included in the CIR
will be based on representative groundwater quality data, will be prepared in
accordance with commonly accepted professional practice, and will fully surround
the nitrate plume in the shallow aquifer, as follows:
i) The map will include, but is not limited to, a 10 mg/L isoconcentration line
that fully and completely encloses and circumscribes the zone of nitrate
contamination, and
ii) The isoconcentration line will be based on an adequate number of
groundwater quality samples and spacing of monitoring wells, both inside
and outside the 10 mg'L isoconcentration line, as determined by the
Executive Secretary.
The use of non-contemporaneous data to create the concentration maps and plume area
delineations is potentially misleading. Data used for the pollutant characterization has to. be
contemporaneous for all wells used per the Consent Agreement as well as common scientific
method. Use of time series maps as well as geometric averages (based on a normal data set)
would provide a more representative depiction of contamination areas versus background
concentrations as well as a representative depiction of concentration distributions and
concentration centers. One example illustrating the failure of a single data result for source
analysis is the difference between the 11/2/2009 and 3/24/2010 Nitrate results at well TWN-2
which increased from 20.8 to 62.1 (and corresponding increase in Chloride concentration).
DRC also recognizes that under the cun^ent monitoring plan, it will take another 2 Vi years to
collect a statistically sound data population at the TWN wells. It would therefore be reasonable to
accelerate the monitoring periods for the plume investigaton based on calculated ground water
linear velocities (per Hydro Geo Chem Calculations), avoiding potential issues with
autocorrelation. Per commonly used statistical guidance documents, a data set can be tested for
normality with a population as low as 7 (Shapiro-Wilk). DRC urges Denison Mines to consider
DUSA December 2009 Nitrate Contamination Investigation Report
DRC Review Findings
Page 14
options for accelerated monitoring for Nitrate and Chloride. Such considerations of accelerated
monitoring may need to be addressed with an amendment of the consent agreement since the
current agreement did not anticipate the need for longer term data collection.
b. Nitrate Source Characterization - DUSA will conduct all tests and
characterization necessary to determine the physical cause(s), locatioti(s), transfer
mechanism(s) and characteristics of all the source(s of the nitrate contamination in
order to either form a basis for and facilitate late submittal of a DUSA Corrective
Action Plan that meets the requirements of UAC R317-6-6.15.D(3).
Per the DRC review it was noted that nitrate source assessment documentation is located in the
CIR (pp. 4 to 9) as well as in the CIR Attachment 1 (Source Review Report by Jo Ann Tischler)
Section 4.0 (pp. 11 to 21). DRC noted that an onsite source assessment, with detail as required by
the Consent Agreement and Utah Administrative Code, has not been performed.
Per the discussion above, DRC does not see the current offsite source assessment conclusion
(Frog Pond) as justified and does not feel that adequate monitoring data and plume
characterization has been done to effectively characterize the distribution and concentration of
nitrate and associated chloride contamination. In particular, DRC does not agree with the DUSA
determination that upgradient data is "clearly spatially and chemically related to the plume at
TW4-i9 (CIR pp 17)" without additional study. Also, it is currently unclear whether the current
contamination is from a single source or multiple sources (e.g. as has been evaluated to determine
a separate source from the chloroform plume). A multiple source scenario has definitely not been
eliminated by the current investigation.
The CIR does not attempt to quantify nitrogen sources at the mill or historical contamination
potential based on past operating procedures (which may be different from current conditions).
Per DRC review, the potential for an onsite source has not been ehminated and the investigation
needs to look at onsite sources more comprehensively. The Source Review Report by Tischler
noted that the SAG Leach Field and Main Leach Field should be given a high priority in the
sampling plan (Tischler Source Review Report pp 13). DRC agrees with this determination,
especially in review of nitrate concentrations at well TWN-2. However, the CIR effectively
negates these sources and offers no further assessment based on unsubstantiated claims of an
upgradient source.
Per DRC review of the existing data, the SAG Leach Field and other Leach Fields specifically
need additional source investigation as outlined in UAC R317-6 "Facility Characterization"
including contaminant substance mixtures present and media of occurrence (quantifiable and
historical assessment of these sources).
5. Item 6.B. During the CIR investigation activities, DUSA will provide a written notice
to the Executive Secretary at least 10 calendar days prior to all drilling, well completion,
aquifer permeability testing, and groundwater sampling activities. DUSA will allow the
Executive Secretary the opportunity to inspect these activities and split sample the
groundwater as the Executive Secretary deems necessary.
DUSA December 2009 Nitrate Contamination Investigation Report
DRC Review Findings
Page 15
DRC received the May 28, 2010 "White Mesa Uranium Mill, Nitrate Monitoring Report"
prepared by Denison Mines (USA) Corp. on June 1, 2010. Per review of the report DRC noted
that the TWN series wells (and several piezometers) were sampled during March 2010. Per DRC
review of DUSA correspondence it was noted that the 10 day notification prior to groundwater
sampling activities was not received as required by Consent Agreement. It appears that the
consent agreement may need to be amended since the ongoing nature of data collection was not
anticipated in the current version.
Conclusion
Per DRC review as outlined above, the CIR is not complete and additional study and analysis is
needed to characterize the plume, determine the source(s) of the contamination and determine the
need for a DUSA corrective action plan.
References
Clark, Ian & Fritz, Peter, 1997, Environmental Isotopes in Hydrogeology, pp 148-154, Nitrogen
Cycling in Rural Watersheds, Lewis Publishers (CRC Press)
Denison Mines (USA) Corp., White Mesa Uranium Mill Ground Water Quality Assurance Plan
(QAP) Revision 3
Denison Mines (USA) Corp., November 2008, Plan and Schedule for Nitrate Contamination
Investigation Report and Groundwater Corrective Action Plan, Prepared by Intera
*'^' Denison Mines (USA) Corp., December 29, 2009, Site Hydrogeology and Estimation of
Groundwater Pore Velocities in the Perched Zone White Mesa Uranium Mill Site Near Blanding,
Utah, Prepared by Hydro Geo Chem Inc.
Denison Mines (USA) Corp., December 29, 2009, Perched Nitrate Monitoring Well Hydraulic
Tests White Mesa Uranium Mill October 2009
'^'Denison Mines (USA) Corp., December 30, 2009, Nitrate Contamination Investigation Report,
White Mesa Uranium Mill Site Blanding Utah, Prepared by Intera
Denison Mines (USA) Corp., March 10, 2010, Perched Nitrate Monitoring Well Installation
and Hydraulic Testing White Mesa Uranium Mill October 2009
Denison Mines (USA) Corp., May 28, 2010, White Mesa Uranium Mill, Nitrate Monitoring
Report, r" Quarter (January through March) 2010
Denison Mines (USA) Corp., Hydro Geo Chem, Inc., December 29, 2009, Site Hydrogeology
and Estimation of Groundwater Pore Velocities in the Perched Zone White Mesa Uranium Mill
Site near Blanding, Utah
DUSA December 2009 Nitrate Contamination Investigation Report
DRC Review Findings
Page 16
Denison Mines (USA) Corp., Hydro Geo Chem, Inc., December 29, 2009, Perched Nitrate
Monitoring Well Hydraulic Tests White Mesa Uranium Mill October 2009
" Tischler, Jo Ann, December 30, 2009, Memorandum regarding Source Review Report for
Nitrate and Chloride in Groundwater at the White Mesa Mill
(12) Utah Administrative Code (UAC) R317-6, Ground Water Quality Protection
Utah Department of Natural Resources, Stefan Kirby, 2008 Special Study 123, Geologic and
Hydrologic Characterization of the Dakota-Burro Canyon Aquifer Near Blanding, San Juan
County, Utah
F:\DUSA\Nitrate Contamination liivesligation\DUSA123009NitrateSludyDRCMemoRev.doc
Denison Mines Nitrate Contamination Investigation Report
DRC Review Memo Appendices
Appendix 1 - January 28, 2009 Stipulated Consent Agreement and Cover Letter (For
Docket Number UGW09-Q3
State of Utah
JON M. HUNTSMAN, JR.
Governor
GARY HERBERT
Lieutenant Governor
Department of
Environmental Quality
Richard W. Sprott
Executive Director
DrVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
Dane L. Finerfrock
Director
January 28, 2009
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: Nitrate Contamination Investigation and Coirective Action Plan, White Mesa Uranium Mill
Near Blanding, Utah. Stipulated Consent Agreement.
Dear Mr. Frydenlund:
On January 26, 2009 the Utah Division of Radiation Control received the fmal Stipulated Consent
Agreement (SCA) for the Nitrate Contamination Investigation and Corrective Action Plan for the White
Mesa Uranium Mill near Blanding, Utah, signed by DUSA.
For your records, enclosed with this letter is an executed copy of the SCA with Co-Executive Secretary
signature. Therefore, the SCA is now in force.
We appreciate your cooperation in this matter.
UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD
Dane L. FinerfjfDjrk
Co-Executive Secretary
DLF/DCH
Enclosure: STIPULATED CONSENT AGREEMENT (DOCKET NUMBER UGW09-03)
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]
www.deq.utnh.fiOv
Printed on 100% recycled paper
TAH WATER QUALITY BOARIT
IN THE MATTER OF
DENISON MINES
(USA) CORP.
1050 17"* Street, SUITE 950
DENVER, COLORADO 80265
DOCKET No. UGW09-03
STIPULATED
CONSENT AGREEMENT
This STIPULATED CONSENT AGREEMENT (hereinafter "AGREEMENT") is between
DENISON MINES (USA) CORP. (hereinafter "DUSA") and the UTAH WATER QUALITY
BOARD (hereinafter "BOARD"), conceming potential violations of the Utah Water Quality Act, (the
"Act"), including sections 19-5-104, -106, -111 and -115, Utah Code Annotated ("UCA") and in
accordance with the Utah Administrative Procedures Act, UCA 63G-4-101 to -601.
1. The BOARD has authority to administer the Utah Water Quality Act.
2. The CO-EXECUTIVE SECRETARY of the BOARD (hereinafter the EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY") will administer the terms and provisions of this AGREEMENT. Utah Code
Ann.§ 19-5-115.
3. The parties now desire to resolve this matter fully without further administrative proceedings
except to the extent provided herein by entering into this AGREEMENT.
4. This AGREEMENT does not in any way relieve DUSA from any other obligation imposed
under the Act or any other State or Federal laws, rules and regulations.
5. DUSA accepts the following facts and stipulations:
A. UCA § 19-5-107(l)(a) requires that "[ejxcept 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 beneticial 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."
B. In accordance with the requirements of the Utah Administrative Code ("UAC") Ground
Water Quality Protection R317-6-6.15(C)(1): "The Executive Secretary may require a person
that is subject to R317-6-6.15 to submit for the Executive Secretary's approval a
Contamination Investigation and Corrective Action Plan, and may require implementation of
an approved Corrective Action Plan.
C. DUSA receives and processes natural uranium-bearing ores including certain specified
alternate feed materials, and possesses byproduct material in the form of uranium waste
tailings and other uranium byproduct waste generated by the licensee's milling operations.
This facility is located approximately 6 miles south of Blanding, Utah on White Mesa in
Sections 28, 29, 32, and 33, Township 37 South, Range 22 East, Salt Lake Baseline and
Meridian, San Juan County, Utah.
D. In a letter dated September 30,2008, the Executive Secretary determined that multiple
groundwater quality samples collected from the shallow aquifer in five (5) monitoring wells
1
at the White Mesa^fcium mill exhibited nitrate + nitrite (al^^trogen) [hereafter "Nitrate"]
concentrations in excess of the 10 mg/1 Utah Ground Water Quality Standard (hereafter
"GWQS"). The groundwater quality samples were collected and analyzed by DUS A as
early as the second Quarter, 2005 monitoring event (June 22, 2005) from wells MW-30 and
MW-31, (May 25, 2005) from well TW4-22, and more recently from wells TW4-24, and
TW4-25.
E. Attached to a cover letter dated November 19, 2008 DUSA submitted to the DRC a
November, 2008 document entitled "Plan and Schedule for Nitrate Contamination
Investigation Report and Groundwater Corrective Action Plan" prepared by its consultant,
INTERA Inc. (hereinafter "ESTTERA Plan"). The INTERA Plan is hereby incorporated by
reference.
DUSA agrees to the following:
A. DUSA will complete a nitrate contamination investigation of the shallow aquifer at White
Mesa and submit a Contaminant Investigation Report (hereinafter "CIR") in accordance with
the INTERA Plan, with the following exceptions:
i. ) In the event there is any conflict between the INTERA Plan and the requirements of
UAC R317-6-6.15(D), the mandates of R317-6-6.15(D) shall prevail.
ii. ) Interim progress reports outlined in section 2.2.2, section 4, and items 3 through 12
listed in Table 1 in section 5 of the INTERA Plan are not required. Instead, a final
written CIR shall be submitted for Executive Secretary approval on or before January 4,
2010.
iii. ) All monitoring wells installed in preparation of the CIR and/or any Corrective Action
Plan shall be permanent and constracted in accordance with UAC R317-6-6.3(I)(6)-
iv. ) All ground water monitoring, sampling and analysis conducted for the CIR will comply
with the currently approved Quality Assurance Plan, mandated by Part I.E. 1(a) of
Denison's Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit, No. UGW370004.
V.) All shallow aquifer equipotential or isoconcentration maps prepared shall be based on
groundwater head or quality samples that are contemporaneous with one another: i.e.
within 5 calendar days.
vi.)CIR Performance Standards and Objectives - the CIR required by Item 5.A shall meet
the following minimum performance standards and objectives upon submittal to the
Executive Secretary on of before Jeinuary 4, 2010:
a) Nitrate Plume Definition - all nitrate isoconcentration map(s) included in the CIR
will be based on representative groundwater quality data, will be prepared in
accordance with commonly accepted professional practice, and will fully surround
the nitrate plume in the shallow aquifer, as follows:
i) The map will include, but is not limited to, a 10 mg/1 isoconcentration line that
fiilly and completely encloses and circumscribes the zone of nitrate
contamination, and
ii) The isoconcentration line will be based on an adequate number of groundwater
quality samples and spacing of monitoring wells, both inside and outside the 10
mg/1 isoconcentration line, as determined by the Executive Secretary.
b) Nitrate Source Characterization - DUSA will conduct all tests and characterization
necessary to determine the physical cause(s), location(s), transfer mechanism(s) and
2
characterist^l^f all the source(s) of the nitrate cont^l^ation in order to either form
a basis for and facilitate later submittal of a DUSA Corrective Action Plan that meets
the requirements of UAC R317-6-6. r5E, or to demonstrate conclusively that DUSA
did not cause or contribute to the Nitrate contamination in any manner and that, as a
result, such a Corrective Action Plan is not necessary.
vii.) The CIR will be performed under the direction of and bear the seal of a Professional
Engineer or Professional Geologist, as required under UAC R317-6-6.15.D(3),
B. During the CIR investigation activities, DUSA will provide a written notice to the Executive
Secretary at least 10 calendar days prior to all drilling, well completion, aquifer permeability
testing, and groundwater sampling activities. DUSA will allow the Executive Secretary the
opportunity to inspect these activities and split sample groundwater as the Executive Secretary
deems necessary.
DUSA agrees to pay stipulated penalty amounts for partial compliance or non compliance with this
STIPULATED CONSENT AGREEMENT. If DUSA fails to comply or only partiaUy complies
with the terms in paragraphs 6 and 8 of this STIPULATED CONSENT AGREEMENT, DUSA
agrees to pay the stipulated amounts set fourth below within 30 days of demand by the
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY:
A. If DUSA fails to provide prior written notice, as required in Item 6.B, DUSA agrees to pay
stipulated penalties in the amotmt of $500 per calendar day.
B. If DUSA fails to submit the CIR on or before the deadline required in Item 6.A, DUSA agrees
to pay stipulated penalties m the amount of $500 per calendar day.
C. If the Executive Secretary determines that the CIR has omitted any information, content
requirements, or failed to meet the performance standards or objectives mandated by Item 6 A,
the Executive Secretary will so advise DUSA by written notice and DUSA will remedy such
omission or failure within 30 calendar days of receipt of such notice. If DUSA fails to remedy
such omission or failure within such 30 day period, DUSA will pay stipulated penalties in the
amount of $2,000 per calendar day for every day after such period that the CIR remains
incomplete, as determined by the Executive Secretary.
D. If DUSA fails to enter into the Stipulated Consent Agreement (hereinafter "SCA") referenced
in paragraph 8 within 30 days after Executive Secretary approval of the CIR required by Item 5
and a determination by the Executive Secretary that a Corrective Action Plan is required,
DUSA will pay stipulated penalties in the amount of $7000 per calendar day for every day
thereafter that the SCA remains unsigned. Unless failure of DUSA to sign the SCA within such
time period is caused by actions or inactions of the Executive Secretary.
DUSA agrees that after Executive Secretary approval of the CIR required by Item 5 and a
determination by the Executive Secretary that a Corrective Action Plan is required, DUSA will
enter into a new SCA. The Division will prepare the SCA with agreed upon performance
standards and schedule for submittal of a groundwater Corrective Action Plan for Executive
Secretary approval. DUSA will sign the SCA within 30 days after Executive Secretary
Approval of the CIR and Executive Secretary determination that a Corrective Action Plan is
required, unless DUSA is prevented from doing so by any actions or inactions of the Executive
Secretary.
DUSA agrees to pay any required penalties within 30 days of written notice from the
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, in the form of a check, made payable to the State of Utah, and
delivered or mailed to:
^I^ti Division of Racmtion Control
Utah Dep2Utment of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 144850
168 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City Utah, 84114-4850
10. The BOARD will view completion of the requirements as outlined in this STIPULATED
CONSENT AGREEMENT as compliance with the AGREEMENT.
11. The deadline stipulated in items 7.A - 7.D may be amended by prior written mumal agreement
of the parties. The party requesting the amendment must write to the other party 14 days before
the stipulated deadline and request an amendment of the deadhne. The other party will either
agree to or deny the amendment in writing within 10 days.
12. Nothing contained in this AGREEMENT shall preclude the BOARD from taking additional
actions to include additional penalties against DUSA for permit violations not resolved by this
AGREEMENT.
13. If an agreement between DUSA and the EXECUTIVE SECRETARY cannot be reached in a
dispute arising under any provision of this AGREEMENT, DUSA or the EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY may commence a proceeding with the BOARD under the Administrative
Procedures Act to resolve the dispute. A final decision in any adjudicative proceeding shall be
subject to judicial review under applicable state law.
14. Nothing in this AGREEMENT shall constitute a waiver by DUSA to raise in defense any legal
or factual contention for future allegations of noncompliance.
15. Nothing in this AGREEMENT shall constitute or be considered as a release from any claims,
to include natural resource damage claims, cause of action, or demand in law or equity which
the STATE may have against DUSA, or any other person, firm, partnership or corporation for
any liability arising out of or relating in any way to the release of pollutants to waters of the
State.
16. While the BOARD is presently not considering additional enforcement actions for any past or
ongoing violations, nothing in this AGREEMENT shall preclude the BOARD from taking
such actions to include other penalties against DUSA for violations of the ACT or permit
violations not resolved by this AGREEMENT.
AGREED to this day of
DENISON MINES (USA) CORP.
., 2009.
UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD
By_
DavjSd C. Frydenlund
Vice President and Counsel
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
By_a^^
Dane L. mnerfrock
Co-Executive Secretary
Denison Mines Nitrate Contamination Investigation Report
DRC Review Memo Appendices
Appendix 2 - DRC Request for Voluntary Plan and Schedule to Investigate and
Remediate
i,1
State of Utah
JON M. HUNTSMAN, JR.
Governor
GARY HERBERT
Lieutenant Governor
Department of
Environmental Quality
Richard W Sprott
Executive Director
DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
Dane L. Finerfrock
Director
September 30, 2008
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURNED RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. David Frydenlund
Vice President, Regulatory Affairs
Denison Mines (USA) Corporation (DUSA)
Independence Plaza, Suite 950
1050 n"' Street
Denver, CO 80265
SUBJECT: Nitrate Contamination Investigation and Corrective Action Plan, White Mesa
Uranium near Blanding. Utah. Request for Voluntary Plan and Schedule to
Investigate and Remediate.
Dear Mr. Frydenlund:
On September 16, 2008 the Utah Division of Radiation Control (DRC) sent an by e-mail request
for a meeting with DUSA conceming nitrate concentrations that exceeded thei Utah Ground Water
Quality Standard (GWQS) of 10 mg/L at the White Mesa Uranium Mill (facility) near Blanding.
DRC attached a draft letter documenting DRC findings conceming the nitrate concentrations
exceeding the GWQS. A meeting was held by a conference call with DRC and DUSA
representatives on September 24, 2008. In this meeting both parties agreed that:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Nitrate concentrations have exceeded the GWQS in the groundwater at the facility in five
monitoring wells, most of which are not located within the confines of the known
chloroform groundwater plume (MW-30, MW-31, TW4-22, TW4-24, andTW4-25).
For the monitor wells in question multiple samples in each have been found in excess of
the nitrate GWQS, beginning as early as June 22, 2005 (2"^* quarter 2005 monitoring
event).
The nitrate plume has migrated in a different direction than the chloroform plume.
The physical boundaries of the nitrate plume are not fully defined.
The source(s) of the nitrate contamination are currently unknown.
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]
www.tieq.utah.gov
Printed on 100% recycled paper
V
i
Page 2
Request for Voluntary Plan and Schedule
During the September 24, 2008 conference call DRC staff informed DUSA that the DRC intends
to use discretion in this matter, on an interim basis, including forbearance on use of formal
enforcement and up-front monetary penalties, provided that:
1. On or before December 15, 2008 DUSA submits a plan of action and schedule for
Executive Secretary approval, for completion and submittal of:
A. A Contamination Investigation (CI) report; and
B. A Groundwater Corrective Action Plan (CAP).
2. DUSA shows good faith in submittal of the plan and schedule above, in a timely manner
and with appropriate content, so as to allow the Executive Secretary to fully review and
evaluate the proposal before December 15, 2008.
3. DUSA receives Executive Secretary approval of the proposed plan of action and schedule
cited in Item I, above, on or before December 15, 2008.
4. DUSA enters into a Stipulated Consent Agreement by January 15, 2009 with the
Executive Secretary, including defined milestones, deadlines, deliverables, and stipulated
penalties related to the approved plan of action and schedule.
DUSA agreed that it would comply with the above Voluntary Plan and Schedule rather than have
DRC issue a Notice of Violation.
In regard to the content of the CI Report and Groundwater CAP, outlined in Item 1 above,
Executive Secretary approval will be based on determination of clear performance standards and
objectives, tangible deliverables, and measurable deadlines that meet all the information
requirements found in UAC R317-6-6.15(D). For your reference, the requirements of UAC
R317-6-6.15(D) are as follows:
D. Contamination Investigation and Corrective Action Plan - Requirements
1. Contamination Investigation - The contamiruition investigation shall include a
characterization of pollution, a characterization of the facility, a data report, and, if the
Corrective Action Plan proposes standards under R317-6-6.15.F.2. or Alternate
Corrective Action Concentration Limits higher than the ground water quality standards,
an endangerment assessment.
a. The characterization of pollution shall include a description of:
(1) The amount, form, concentration, toxicity, environmental fate and transport, and
other significant characteristics of substances present, for both ground water
contaminants and any contributing surficial contaminants;
(2) The areal and vertical extent of the contaminant concentration, distribution and
chemical make-up; and
Page 3
c.
(3) The extent to which contaminant substances have migrated and are expected to
migrate.
The characterization of the facility shall include descriptions of:
(1) Contaminant substance mixtures present and media of occurrence;
(2) Hydrogeologic conditions underlying and, upgradient and downgradient of the
facility;
(3) Surface waters in the area;
(4) Climatologic and meteorologic conditions in the area of the facility; and
(5) Type, location and description ofpossible sources of the pollution at the facility;
(6) Groundwater withdrawals, pumpage rates, and usage within a 2-mile radius.
The report of data used and data gaps shall include:
(1) Data packages including quality assurance and quality control reports;
(2) A description of the data used in the report; and
(3) A description of any data gaps encountered, how those gaps affect the analysis
and any plans to fill those gaps.
The endangerment assessment shall include descriptions of any risk evaluation
necessary to support a proposal for a standard under R317-6-6.15.F.2 or for an
Alternate Corrective Action Concentration Limit
e. The Contamination Investigation shall include such other information as the Executive
Secretary requires.
2. Proposed Corrective Action Plan
The proposed Corrective Action Plan shall include an explanation of the construction
and operation of the proposed Corrective Action, addressing the factors to be considered
by the Executive Secretary as specified in R317-6-6.15.E. and shall include such other
information as the Executive Secretary requires. It shall also include a proposed
schedule for completion.
3. The Contcuninant Investigation and Corrective Action Plan must be performed uruler the
direction, and bear the seal, ofa professional engineer or professional geologist.
It should be noted that in accordance with UAC R317-6-6.15(C) "..A person subject to this rule
who has been notified that the Executive Secretary is exercising his or her authority under R317-6-
6.15 to require submission ofa Contamination Investigation and Corrective Action Plan, shall,
within 30 days of that notification, submit to the Executive Secretary a proposed schedule for those
submissions, which may include different deadlines for different elements of the Investigation and
Plan..". This Request for Voluntary Plan and Schedule does not constitute formal notice under UAC
R317-6-6.15(C). As a result, the Executive Secretary is allowing DUSA to have up to 90 days from
the September 16,2008 (date that DUSA was first notified by e-mail of nitrate exceeding the
GWQS) to develop and secure Executive Secretary approval of an appropriate plan of action and
schedule to meet the requirements of UAC R317-6-6.15(D).
Page 4
We appreciate your corporation in this matter. If you have any questions please call Dean
Henderson at [phone]. ^
UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD
Dane L. Fineffrock
Co - Executive Secretary
DCH:dh
Appendix 3 - DRC Frog Pond Ni.rate Sample. Memo
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
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Through:
FROM:
DATE:
File
Loren Morton, Section Manager
Phil Goble, Hydrogeologist
May 27, 2010
SUBJECT: October 14, 2009 Sample Results From the "Frog Pond" Located
Northeast of the Denison Mines (USA) Corp. White Mesa Uranium
Mill Near Blanding, Utah.
The Division of Radiation Control (hereafter DRC) conducted the 2009 Split Sampling Event for
the Denison Mines (USA) Corp (hereafter DUSA) White Mesa Mill facility near Blanding, Utah
from October 12- 14, 2009. On October 14, 2009 the DRC collected a surface water sample from
a pond northeast of the Mill. This pond is referred as the "Frog Pond" by DUSA. The purpose of
this memorandum is to document the sampling event and discuss the results. Pictures taken
during the Frog Pond sampling are attached to this memo.
The October 14, 2009 Frog Pond surface water sample was collected by DRC hydrogeologists
Phil Goble and Dean Henderson. Mr. David Turk, who is the Site Radiation Safety Officer for the
Mill also collected a surface water sample from Frog Pond at the same time as DRC staff. DRC
staff told Mr. Turk they were going to analyze the sample for Ammonia (as N) and Nitrate +
Nitrite (as N).
The October 14, 2009 Frog Pond sample was submitted to DRC contract laboratory Lionville
Laboratory for analysis. The sample was analyzed for Ammonia (as N) under method A4500-
NH3 G and Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) under method E353.2. The results for the sample are
summarized below:
Sample Analyte Analytical
Method
Results Utah Ground
Water Quality
Standard
FROG POND Ammonia (as N) A4500-NH3 E 0.11 mg/L 25 mg/L
FROG POND Nitrate -i- Nitrite (as N) E353.2 <0.02 mg/L 10 mg/L
195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, UT
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144850 • Salt Uke City, UT 84114-4850
Telephone [phone] • Fax (801) 533^097 • T.D.D. [phone]
www.deq. utah.gov
Printed on 100% recycled paper
Page 2
As shown on the table above, the results for Ammonia (as N) and Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) were
well below the Utah Ground Water Quality Standard (hereafter GWQS) of 25 mg/L and 10 mg/L,
respectively. In fact the result for Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) was non-detect.
In 2009, during review of the New Wells Background Report and other reports, a Nitrate
contaminant plume was identified by DRC staff in five monitoring wells in the mill site area,
including wells: MW-30, MW-31, TW4-22, TW4-24, and TW4-25. The highest nitrate result
found in the wells on site was in well TW4-19 with a result of 47.8 mg/L during the 4'*" Quarter of
2008.
In the December 30, 2009 Nitrate Contamination Investigation Report, DUSA argues that the
Frog Pond is the source of the nitrate/chloride plume identified by DRC staff in 2009. From the
mid 1980s until the Recapture Reservoir water was first piped to the Mill in 1991-1992, the Frog
Pond served as an additional water source for Mill operations. DUSA claims that water from the
upgradient waste water treatment facility is the source of the water for the Frog Pond. Apparently
water from the Frog Pond was piped to the northem-most wildlife pond at the Mill and to another
holding pond on site for Mill makeup water (Lawzy Lake).
Conclusion
A surface water sample collected from the Frog Pond on October 14, 2009. The sample was
analyzed for Ammonia (as N) and Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) and both results were well below the
GWQS; therefore, if the Frog Pond was the historical source of the nitrate/chloride plume as
DUSA suspects, it doesn't appear to contribute to the problem today.
264 Welsh Pool Road
Exton,PA 19341
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Eberline Utah Project: Utah DRC
60) Scarboro Road Project Number: 11343-630-001 Reported:
Oak Ridge TN, 37830 Project Manager: Cecilia Searcy 11/10/2009 13:15
Wet Chemistry
Lionville Laboratory
Reporting
Analyte Result and Qualifier Limit Units Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed Method
MW-26 (0910052-07) Water
Carbonate Alkalinity 2.0 U 2.0 mg/L 1 L910192 10/22/2009 10/22/2009 SM2320B
Bicarbonate Alkalinity 343 2.0 mg/L 1 L910192 10/22/2009 10/22/2009 SM2320B
Total Dissolved Solids 3200 10.0 mg/L 1 L910167 10/16/2009 10/16/2009 SM2540C
Chloride 54.4 2.50 mg/L 10 L911022 10/22/2009 10/22/2009 EPA 300.0 mg/L
(1993)
Sulfate 1840 125 mg/L 500 L911022 10/22/2009 10/22/2009 EPA 300.0 mg/L
(1993)
Nitrate/Nitrite as N 0.20 0,02 mg/L 1 L910219 10/23/2009 10/23/2009 EPA 353.2
Fluoride 0.273 0,100 mg/L ] L910149 10/19/2009 10/19/2009 SM4500
pH 6.75 0,10 pH Units 1 L910142 10/19/2009 10/19/200SSM 4500-H+ B
Ammonia as N 0.29 0,10 mg/L 1 L910228 10/19/2009 10/19/2009M4500-NH3E
F-POND (0910052-08) Water
Nitrate/Nitrite as N 0.02 U 0,02 mg/L 1 L910219 10/23/2009 10/23/2009 EPA 353.2
Ammonia as N 0.11 0,10 mg/L 1 L910228 10/19/2009 10/19/200SM4500-NH3E
006000006
Denison Mines Nitrate Contamination Investigation Report
DRC Review Memo Appendices
Appendix 4 - Data Used to Draw the December 30, 2009 Nitrate and Chloride ISO-
Concentration Contours
Data Used to Generate the Nitrate and Chloride Concentration Contours for the
Well Number Date Sampled Nitrate Result mg/L Chloride Result
mg/L
MW-01 10/192009 0.2 17
MW-02 10/21/2009 O.IU 6
MW-03 10/26/2009 0.2 46
MW-03A 10/28/2009 1 42
MW-04 9/14/2009 5.3 43
MW-05 10/12/2009 O.IU 51
MW-11 10/19/2009 O.IU 30
MW-12 10/13/2009 O.IU 67
MW-14 10/20/2009 O.IU 17
MW-15 10/20/2009 0.1 38
MW-16 No Data
MW-17 10/21/2009 0.9 35
MW-18 10/21/2009 O.IU 58
MW-19 10/19/2009 2.2 25
MW-20 10/28/2009 6.2 71
MW-21 No Data
MW-22 10/27/2009 3.8 7
MW-23 10/20/2009 0.1 8
MW-24 10/28/2009 0.1 46
MW-25 10/13/2009 O.IU 34
MW-26 10/13/2009 0.1 58
MW-27 10/12/2009 5.2 44
MW-28 10/12/2009 0.1 104
MW-29 10/26/2009 O.IU 35
MW-30 10/14/2009 15 129
MW-31 10/14/2009 22.6D 138
MW-32 10/14/2009 O.IU 32
Piezometer-1 10/27/2009 7.4 61
Piezometer-2 10/27/2009 0.6 7
Peizometer-3 10/27/2009 1.2 19
Piezometer-4 No Date 1.8 46
Piezometer-5 No Date 0.7 18
TW4-1 9/15/2009 7.3 36
TW4-10 9/15/2009 8.1 51
TW4-11 9/15/2009 7 49
TW4-12 9/15/2009 5.1 22
TW4-13 9/15/2009 4.7 63
TW4-14 9/15/2009 1.5 38
TW4-15 9/14/2009 O.ID 46
TW4-16 9/15/2009 8.8 79
TW4-17 9/15/2009 0.1 33
Well Number Date Sampled Nitrate Result mg/L Chloride Result
mg/L
TW4-18 9/15/2009 5.9 26
TW4-19 9/14/2009 0.1 43
TW4-2 9/15/2009 6.6U 43
TW4-20 9/14/2009 3.3 153
TW4-21 9/15/2009 9.2 281
TW4-22 9/15/2009 40.3 391
TW4-23 9/15/2009 0.1 43
TW4-24 9/15/2009 30.7 618
TW4-25 9/15/2009 3.3 328
TW4-3 9/15/2009 2.8 21
TW4-4 9/15/2009 8.4 39
TW4-5 9/15/2009 8.3-48
TW4-6 9/15/2009 5 37
TW4-7 9/15/2009 4.1 37
TW4-8 9/15/2009 0.1 44
TW4-9 9/15/2009 2.5 30
TWN-1 10/28/2009 0.5 18
TWN-10 11/10/2009 1.4 26
TWN-11 11/3/2009 1.3 74
TWN-12 11/3/2009 0.5 109
TWN-13 11/4/2009 0.5 83
TWN-14 11/4/2009 3.4 32
TWN-15 11/10/2009 1.1 78
TWN-16 11/4/2009 1 39
TWN-17 11/4/2009 6.7 152
TWN-18 11/2/2009 1.3 57
TWN-19 11/2/2009 7.4 125
TWN-2 11/2/2009 20.8 55
TWN-3 11/2/2009 29 106
TWN-4 10/28/2009 0.4 11
TWN-5 11/10/2009 0.2 48
TWN-6 11/3/2009 1.4 21
TWN-7 11/10/2009 0.1 7
TWN-8 11/3/2009 0.1 12
TWN-9 11/10/2009 12 205