DRC-2010-005681 - 0901a068801d206d

DENISON
DRC-2010-005681
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
1050 17th Street, Suite 950
Denver, CO 80265
USA
Tel: [phone]
Fax : [phone]
www.denisonmines.com
October 19, 2010
VIA E-MAIL AND OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
Rusty Lundberg
Executive Secretary
Utah Radiation Control Board
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
195 North 1950 West
P.O. Box 144810
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4820
7
A^
'•-^
/^
Receivsd
OCT 2010
Division of
Radiation Control
TO
^\
COl
/^
Re: State of Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit ("GWDP") No. UGW370004
Notice of Violation and Cease and Desist Compliance Order of September 22, 2010, regarding
the White Mesa Uranium Mill's New Decontamination Pad ("NDP")
Dear Mr. Lundberg:
This letter responds to the Utah Department of Environmental Quality's ("UDEQ's") Notice of Violation
and Cease and Desist Compliance Order of September 22, 2010, which Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
("Denison") received on September 24, 2010. Reference is also made to Denison's letter of September
2, 2010 which:
• responded to UDEQ's request for information ("RFI") letter of May 10, 2010,
• provided 10-day notification to UDEQ of the September 13, 2010 hydrostatic test of the NDP,
• transmitted redline revisions and clean copies of Revision 10.1 to the White Mesa Mill's (the
"Mill's") Discharge Minimization Technology Plan ("DMT Plan"), and
• transmitted redline revisions and clean copies of Revision 3 of the Mill's Contingency Plan.
The sections and numbering of this letter follow those of UDEQ's September 22, 2010 letter. Each UDEQ
statement is shown in italics, below, followed by Denison's response.
1. Violation of Part I.D.4 of the Permit for construction, and operation of a new wastewater
treatment or storage facility witfiout submittal of engineering design plans and specifications, and
prior Executive Secretary review and approval.
DRC Findings: In the June 22, 2010 DUSA root cause analysis, DUSA states it was Weir understanding
that this disagreement on the interpretation of Part I.D.4 arising in 2008 was resolved in 2009 through the
addition of Part I. I-I. 4 the Permit This statement would be true, if DUSA had followed the requirements of
Part I.H. 4 ofthe Permit, and secured the required approvals before operation ofthe New
Decontamination Pad (NDP).
In light of the January 20, 2010 Permit modification that required DUSA to obtain Executive Secretary
approval of certain NDP design elements and construction before operation of the pad, it is clear that the
DUSA NDP facility has a potential to contaminate groundwater and is therefore regulated under the
Water Quality Act Therefore, we have determined that Violation No. 1 still stands as cited. A proposed
civil penalty has been calculated by DRC staff and is attached to this letter For details, see the DRC
Letter to Mr. Rusty Lundberg
October 19, 2010
Page 2
memorandum attached herewith. A proposed Settlement Agreement (SA) is also attached for your
consideration.
Denison Response: The State of Utah Division of Radiation Control ("DRG") memorandum detailing the
calculation of the proposed civil penalty was not included with your September 22, 2010 letter. Please
provide us with a copy of that memorandum so that we can review the manner of calculation of the
proposed penalty.
2. Violation of Part I.H.4 (a) of the Permit for failure to submit an updated DMT IVIonitoring Plan
within 30 days of Permit issuance, or by February 19, 2010.
DRC Findings: The DRC acknowledges that DUSA did submit letters regarding NDP on June 29, 2009
and November 16, 2009 that included excerpts of proposed language changes to the DMT Plan. We also
acknowledge that DUSA submitted a revised and stand-alone version ofthe DMT Plan dated March 12,
2010. After review of the March 12, 2010 submittal the DRC sent DUSA a May 10, 2010 DRC RFI. As of
this date, DUSA has not responded or resolved the issues presented. Therefore, we have determined
that Violation No.2 still stands as cited. Because Violation No.2 is a failure to comply with a requirement
found in Part I. H. 4 of the Permit, the proposed penalty has been combined for Violations 2, 3, 4, and 5.
Said civil penalty has been calculated by DRC staff and is attached to this letter A proposed SA is also
attached for your consideration.
Denison Response: Denison submits that the DRC's finding is based on incorrect facts. In fact,
Denison responded to the May 10, 2010 RFI on September 2, 2010.
• That response included all information requested in the May 10, 2010 RFI, specifically:
o Redline revisions and clean copies of Revision 10.1 to the DMT Plan,
o Redline revisions and clean copies of Revision 3 of the Contingency Plan,
o 10-day notification to UDEQ of the September 13, 2010 hydrostatic test of the NDP,
o Information regarding engineering design of the steel liner and leak detection system,
o Response to questions regarding the previous hydrostatic testing, and
o Response to questions regarding the as-built drawings.
• Denison's response was submitted electronically on September 2, 2010. A copy of the
transmittal email is provided as Attachment 1 to this letter.
• Two hard copies of Denison's response were submitted by Federal Express on September 3,
2010 and received by DRC on September 7, 2010. A copy of the confirmation of Detailed
Results of Delivery is provided as Attachment 2 to this letter.
• The transmittal was received by DRC. As indicated on the Detailed Results form, the submittal
was acknowledged to have been received by DRC at 9:26 AM on September 7, 2010.
Denison believes that the September 2, 2010 submittal addressed and resolved all of the issues
presented in the May 10, 2010 RFI and all previous correspondence from DRC.
Denison therefore submits that Violation #2 should be rescinded or reconsidered.
3. Violation of Part I.H.4 (b) of the Permit for failure to submit engineering drawings for the steel
liner and leak detection system and receive Executive Secretary approval before liner
construction.
DRC Findings: The facts remain that an October 8, 2009 DRC inspection found the steel liner had
already been constructed at the NDP. Further, the DRC has requested additional information regarding
engineering design of the steel liner and leak detection system (LDS) in multiple DRC RFI letters, dated
DENISO
MINES
Letter to Mr. Rusty Lundberg
October 19, 2010
Page 3
August 6, 2009, February 4, 2010, and May 10, 2010. To date, DUSA has not fully resolved the concerns
and issues provided therein.
Because DUSA constructed the steel liner and leak detection system before receiving Executive
Secretary approval of the engineering drawings, we have determined that Violation No. 3 still stands as
cited. A proposed civil penalty has been calculated by DRC staff and is attached to this letter Because
this violation is a failure to comply with a requirement found in Part I.H.4 ofthe Permit, the proposed
penalty has been combined for Violations 2, 3, 4, and 5. Said civil penalty has been calculated by DRC
staff and is attached to this letter A proposed SA is also attached for your consideration.
Denison Response: Denison submits that the DRC's finding is based on incorrect facts, in fact,
Denison responded to DRC's May 10, 2010 RFI, and provided the information requested in the two prior
DRC letters, including the requested information regarding engineering design of the steel liner and leak
detection system, with its September 2, 2010 letter described above.
Denison believes that the September 2, 2010 submittal addressed and resolved all of the issues
presented in the May 10, 2010 RFI and all previous correspondence from DRC.
Denison therefore submits that Violation #3 should be rescinded or reconsidered.
4. Violation of Part i.H.4.(c) of the Permit 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.
DRC Findings: We acknowledge that DUSA claims they provided a 10 day advance notification ofthe
hydrostatic test that began December 1, 2009. However, there was no advance notification made for the
February 9-11, 2010 hydrostatic test To correct the violation, DUSA states it will perform a third
hydrostatic test and will provide DRC staff a 10 day prior notification as requirement. To date, we await
said notice.
Because DUSA failed to provide a 10 day notification to the DRC for the February 9-11, 2010
hydrostatic test, we have determined that Violation No.4 still stands as cited. A proposed civil penalty has
been calculated by DRC staff and is attached to this letter Because this violation is a failure to comply
with a requirement found in Part I.H.4 of the Permit, the proposed penalty has been combined for
Violations 2, 3, 4, and 5. Said civil penalty has been calculated by DRC staff and is attached to this letter
A proposed SA is also attached for your consideration.
Denison Response: Denison submits that the DRC's finding is based on incorrect facts. In fact,
Denison provided a 10-day notification to UDEQ of the September 13, 2010 hydrostatic test of the NDP,
in its September 2, 2010 letter described above.
Denison therefore submits that Violation #4 should be rescinded or reconsidered.
5. Violation of Part LH.4(d) of the Permit for failure to refrain from use of the New Decontamination
Pad until after Executive Secretary approval of the as-built drawings.
DRC Findings: The fact remains that DUSA put the NDP into service before receiving approval of the as-
built drawings. We recognize that because the steel liner and LDS had been constructed sometime
before October 8, 2009, that the November 16, 2009 engineering drawings and other information
submitted could be considered an as-built report. However, the DRC has requested additional information
in RFI letters dated February 4 and May 10, 2010. To date DUSA has not resolved these issues.
DENISON
MINES
Letter to Mr. Rusty Lundberg
October 19, 2010
Page 4
To correct the violation DUSA stated it: "... stopped use of the new decontamination pad on May 11,
2010, and will not recommence use ofthe pad until all conditions in Part I.H.4 ofthe Permit have been
satisfied and Executive Secretary approval has been obtained in writing. " This corrective action is
acceptable.
Because DUSA placed the NDP into sen/ice before receiving Executive Secretary approval of the As Built
drawings, we have determined that Violation No. 5 still stands as cited. A proposed civil penalty has been
calculated by DRC staff and is attached to this letter Because this violation is a failure to comply with a
requirement found in Part I.H.4 ofthe Permit, the proposed penalty has been combined for Violations 2,
3, 4, and 5. Said civil penalty has been calculated by DRC staff and is attached to this letter A proposed
SA is also attached for your consideration.
Denison Response: Denison submits that the DRC's finding is based on incorrect facts. In fact,
Denison responded to the May 10, 2010 RFI, including a response to questions regarding the as-built
drawings, with its September 2, 2010 letter described above.
Denison believes that the September 2, 2010 submittal addressed and resolved all of the issues
presented in the May 10, 2010 RFI and all previous correspondence from DRC.
Denison therefore submits that Violation #5 should be rescinded or reconsidered.
Because the violations and calculations of proposed penalties do not take into account Denison's
September 2, 2010 submittal, we ask that the Executive Secretary consider that submission prior to
determining any proposed penalties. We also ask that the Executive Secretary provide Denison with a
memorandum detailing the calculation of any such proposed penalties.
For these reasons, Denison has not included with this letter a signed Settlement Agreement or any
payments with respect to the penalties proposed in your September 22, 2010 letter.
Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions or require any further information.
Yours very truly,
DENISON IVIINES (USA) CORP.
Ot''^t'<x-' ^^iii..c^^iy^—'
Jo Ann Tischler
Director, Compliance and Permitting
cc: David C. Frydenlund
Ron F. Hochstein
Harold R. Roberts
David E. Turk
K. Weinel
Attachments
DENISO
MINES
ATTACHMENT 1
September 2, 2010 Email Transmitting
Denison Mines (USA) Corp. Response to May 10, 2010 RFI
Kathy Weinel
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Jo Ann Tischler
Thursday, September 02, 2010 7:05 PM
[e-mail]
Harold Roberts; David Frydenlund; Kathy Weinel; David Turk; Meredith Goble
Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit ("GWDP") No. UGW370004 RFI Regarding New
Decontamination Pad
Denison 09.02.10 Response to UDEQ 05.10.10 RFI on New Decon Pad.pdf; Tailings Mgnt
System and DMT Mon Plan 08.03.10 Rv 10.1 clean.doc; Tailings Mgnt System and DMT Mon
Plan 08.03.10 Rv 10.1 redine.doc; Proposed Contingency Plan Rev 3 sent to DRC with decon
pad RFI repsonse letter clean.doc; Proposed Contingency Plan Rev 3 sent to DRC with decon
pad RFI repsonse letter redline.doc
Mr. Lundberg,
I have attached Denison Mines (USA) Corp's response to Utah DEQ's May 10, 2010 Request for Information regarding
the New Decontamination Pad at White Mesa Mill.
Attached to this email please find a pdf copy of our response and attachments, along with MS Word copies of redline
and clean blackline revisions ofthe Discharge Monitoring Technology Plan and Contingency Plan.
Two hard copies ofthe response and all attachments have also been submitted by express delivery.
Please contact me if you have any questions on this transmittal.
Yours truly,
Jo Ann Tischler
Jo Ann Tischler
Director, Compliance and Permitting
t: [phone] | f: [phone]
1050 17th street, Suite 950, Denver, CO 80265
DENISON MINES (USA) CORP
www.denisonnnines.com
This e-mail is intended for the exclusive use of the person(s) mentioned as the recipient{s). This message and any attached files with it are confidential and may contain
privileged or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient(s) please delete this message and notify the sender. You may not use, distribute print or copy this
message if you are not the intended recipient(s).
ATTACHMENT 2
Federal express Detailed Results of Delivery of
Denison Mines (USA) Corp. Response to May 10, 2010 RFI
Page 1 of 1
Fed
Detailed Results
Tracking no.: 796214096221
%•' Print page | Close O
Select time format: 12H
Delivered
Shipment Dates
Delivered
Signed for by: C.SMITH
Siiipdate Sep 3, 2010
Delivery date Sep 7, 2010 9:26 AM
Destination
SALT IjiikE CTTY", UT
Signature Proof of Delivery
Shipment Options
hiold at FedEx Location
Hold at FedEx Location service is not available for this shipment.
Shipment Facts
Service type
Weight
Priority Pak
4.0 lbs/1.8 kg
Delivered to Receptionist/Front Desk
Shipment Travel History
Select time zone: Local Scan Time
All shipment travel activity Is displayed in local time for the location
: Date/Time Activity Location Details
' Sep 7, 2010 9:26 AM Delivered SALT LAKE CITY, UT
: Sep 7, 2010 7:44 AM On FedEx vehicle for delivery I SALT LAKE CITY, UT
Sep 7, 2010 6:20 AM At dest sort facility SALT LAKE CITY, UT
Sep 7, 2010 6:05 AM At local FedEx facility SALT LAKE CITY, UT
Sep 5, 2010 4:05 PM Departed FedEx location MEMPHIS, TN
^Sep4, 2010 3:09 PM In transit :MEMPHIS,TN
Sep 4, 2010 11:03 AM ! Arrived at FedEx location MEMPHIS, TN
i Sep3, 2010 10:38 PM At local FedEx facility DENVER, CO
Sep 3, 2010 7:50 PM Left FedEx origin facility DENVER, CO
^Sep 3, 2010 6:12 PM : Picked up DENVER, CO
Sep 3, 2010 9:06 AM Shipment information sent to FedEx
http://www.fedex.coiii/Tracking/Detail?ftc_start_url=&totalPieceNurn=&backTo=&templ... 9/28/2010