DRC-2012-001423 - 0901a068802cf4f6

Department of
Environmental Quality
Amanda Smith
E.xt'aittvc Director
Df\'ISION OF FLADIATION CONTROL
Rusty Lundberg
Dircctoi-
DRC-2012-001423
State of Utah
G.ARY R. HERBERT
Governor
GREG BELL
Lietitenant Governor
Apnl 26,2012
CERTIFIED MAIL
Return Receipt Required
Jo Ann Tischler, Director, Compliance and Permitting
Denison Mines (USA) Corp
1050 17"^ Street, Suite 950
Denver, CO 80265
Subject: Apnl 12, 2012 Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (DUSA) Response to Notice of Violation and
Compliance Order UGW 12-01: DRC Findings and Proposed Settlement Agreement
Dear Ms Tischler:
The Utah Division of Radiation Control (DRC) has reviewed DUSA's Apnl 12, 2012 response to the March
7, 2012 Notice of Violation and Compliance Order, Docket No. UGW 12-01 (NOV). A copy of the DRC
review memo and proposed penalty calculation is attached
Two copies of a Settlement Agreement (SA) contract, based on the proposed civil penalty are also attached.
If you wish to resolve the NOV based on the enclosed calculations, please review the SA and sign both copies
(do not date them), and then return them both to this office withm ten (10) calendar days of receipt of this
letter. Tliercafter, the Co-Executive Secretary will sign and date the SA's and return one ongmal to you
Payment of the penalty will then be due within 30 calendar days of the date the final SA document is signed
by the Co-Executive Secretary.
If you would like to discuss the proposed monetary penalty or the content of the SA further, please contact
Tom Rushing at [phone] to arrange a settlement meeting or conference call.
Sincerely,
UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD
Rusty Lundberg . Co-Executive Secretary
RL TR tr
Enclosures 1. DRC Review Memo (including the proposed penalty calculation)
2 Settlement Agreement Contract UGWT2-01SA (2 copies)
F -.DLSA^Stomi Water Management'201 I SW Inspection .NOV DGWl 2-01 \S.A DocsMJGWl 2-01 Proposed SA Ltr docx
195 North 1050 West • Salt Lake Gity. UT
Mailing Addiess P O Box I44S50 • Salt Lake Gity. UT S4I 14-4S50
Telephone (801 ) 53(S-4250 • Fax (801 ) 533-4097 -TDD (SON 536-4414
mm Jcq ulah ,£rin
Pniiledim lii(j"u rccvcled paper
^=^-1 mMm it]
; H 4 «>
State of Utah
GARY R HERBERT
Governor
GREG BELL
Lieiitenanl Governor
Department of
Environmental Quality
Amanda Smith
E.xecutive Director
DIVISION OF RADIATION GONTROL
Rusty Lundberg
Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: File
THROUGH: Phil Goble, Compliance Section Manager
FROM: Tom Rushmg, P.G. M '
DATE: April 26, 2012
SUBJECT: March 7, 2012 Notice of Violation and Order Docket No. UGW12-01, Denison Mines
(TJSA) Corp. Apnl 12, 2012 response to the NOV, Utah Division of Radiation Control
Findings and Proposed Civil Penalty for Cited Violations
This memo is to provide L The Division of Radiation Control (DRC) review findings regarding the
Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (DUSA) Apnl 12, 2012 letter response (Response) to Notice of
Violation and Order Docket No. UGW12-01 (NOV), and 2. A civil penalty calculation for the cited
violations.
L PRC Review of the Response
Per review of the Response, DUSA did not reserve their right to request a heanng before the Water
Quality Board.
The NOV Order requires DUSA to prepare a response with the following items:
a) The root cause of the noncompliance,
b) Corrective steps taken or to be taken to prevent re-occurrence of the noncompliance,
c) Date when compliance was or will be achieved.
Per the response, DUSA accepts all violations in the NOV (5 violations total). Table 1 below
summanzes the 5 violations cited m the NOV, DUSA response and DRC findings.
195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, UT
Mailinj; .Address F O Box 144850 • Salt Lake City. UT 841 14-4850
Telephone (801 ) 536-4250 • Fax (801 ) 533-1097 -TDD [phone]
vviot dcq uln/i gov
Printed on IO(i",. recvcled paper
J]
LO
a
cr
•
•
•
o
r-={
•
r-q
a
U.S. Postal ServiceTM
CERTIFIED MAIL™ RECEIPT
(Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided)
For delivery.lnformation visit our website at www.usps.como
... . . . ,
Postage
Certified Fee
$
Postmark
Postage
Certified Fee
Postmark
RE 4/26/12 findings & settlement agreement
TR
Jo Ann Tischler
Denison Mines (USA) Corp
1050 Seventeenth ST, STE 950
Denver, CO 80265
PS Form 3»00. August 2006 See Reverse for Instructions
Page 2
Table 1 - Summary of Violations NOV and Order Docket UGW 12-01, DUSA Responses and DRC Findings
Violation Summary DUSA Apnl 12, 2012 Response,
Root Cause of the Violation
DRC Findings
Violation 1 - NOV lists 1 \nolation of the
White Mesa U-Mill Groundwater
Discharge Permit UGW370004 (Permit),
Part I.D.I 1 for failing to store and manage
feedstock materials m water tight
containers (or water tight overpack) or on a
qualified hardened surface.
DUSA states that the root cause of the
violation was that the '"jiew operators
had been rotated into the alternate
feed processing area for the alteniate
feed processing campaign Tlie ne^^'ly
assigned operators opened and
emptied, or partially-emptied, a
number of feed drums for the alteniate
feed batch, placing some of the
emptied open drums on the engineered
concrete pad, and eight additional
drums onto the ground surface "
Violation Stands
Violation 2 - NOV lists 1 violation of the
Permit Part I.D 10 for failing to manage all
contact and non-contact storm water in
accordance with the currently approved
Storm Water Best Management Practices
Plan. Specifically DUSA violated Section
2.0 of the SWBMPP by failing to provide
an adequate ditch and diversion system to
channel and contain the surface runoff to
the tailings management system
DUSA states that the root cause of the
violation was that ''the Mill
experienced high rainfall dunng
October 2011. One of the rainfall
events overtopped both the surface
ditch and the collection sump before
Mill operations personnel were able to
activate the pump return system to
empty the sump. Tlie overtopping
resulted in breakdown and carryover
of benn soils and water, cr-eatmg the
rills and canyover obser-\'ed by DRC
during the October 2011 inspection "
Violation Stands
Violation 3 - NOV lists 1 violation of the
Permit Part I.D 10 for failing to provide
adequate acUve operational measures to
discover, prevent, control, contain and
clean-up spills of kerosene outside of the
secondary containment located north of the
shop building
DUSA states that the root cause of the
violation was that ''Tlie drum and dnirn
saddle had been moved by operations
personnel to a position near the wall
that r-esulted in the hose and pump
handle being dwectly above the wall.
\Mien the hose and handle system
dnpped kerosene as it was used, the
drips fell outside the concrete pad
area, on and along the outside edge of
the wall"
Violation Stands
Violation 4 - NOV lists 1 violation of the
Permit Part I.D. 10 for failing to provide
adequate active operational measures to
discover, prevent, control, contain and
clean-up spills of oil from drums stored on
racks east of the shop building
DUSA states that the root cause of the
violation was that "One of the racks
with its attached dnp pan was placed
on uneven grvund such that the r'ack
and pan tilted down at one end
Leaked fluids accumulated at the lower
end of the tilted pan and over-topped
the pan at the low end, staining the
surrounding soils
Violation Stands
Violation 5 - NOV lists 1 violation of the
Permit Part I.D. 10 for failing to control
DUSA states that the root cause of the
violation was that "Tlie New
Violation Stands
Pase 3
Violation Summary DUSA Apnl 12, 2012 Response,
Root Cause of the Violahon
DRC Findings
contact wash water by effective operational
measures at the New Decontamination Pad
near the scale house
Decontamination Pad wash water
pump is positioned on a small concrete
footing which is set dwectly on bar-e
ground. Leaks frvm packing in the
pump, which ar'e not directly above the
conci'ete footing can r-each the bar-e
ground surface. Due to the natwe of
the pump's serTice, it has not been
possible to ensure zero leakage of
packing and joints 100 per-cent of the
pump's seiTice hours "
5 violations cited '5 violations stand
Each DUSA response to the 5 NOV violations regarding the root cause of the non-compliance, and
corrective steps taken to prevent re-occurrence of the non-compliance is listed below followed by
DRC findings.
VIOLATION 1
DUSA RESPONSE - VIOLATION 1
a. Root Cause of the Non Compliance
Operations in the alternate feed area f-equire maneuvering space for staging of drums of altcr-nale
feed lo be opened emptied and processed in each alternate feed campaign.
At the time of the October 20 JJ Stonn Water Lnspection Denison had constructed an addition to the
concrete pad area at the Alternate Feed Circuit based on a design which had been submitted to the
Executive Secretary for approval. Tlie Utah Division of Radiation Control (DRC) approved the
proposed pad design in a letter dated September 30, 2011 Tlie pad was constructed and the new
concr'ete was set to cure during the fust two weeks of October 2011. Dunng a visit to the Mill on
October 4, 2011 DRC staff rioted that the pad consUnction then m process complied with the
approved design plan At the time of the October 18, 2011 Storm Water Inspection, the as built
submitted to the Executive Secretary had not yet been approved and the new co?icrete area had not
yet been placed into service. DRC subsequently approved the as built drawing in a letter dated
October 24, 2011
However although this new addition is intended to provide more maneuvering space for staging of
alternate feed dr-ums and for opening emptying and processing such dr-ums, there was ne^'ertheless
sufficient previously built and appr'oved concrete surface area available for all the dr-ums in use or
staged at the alter-nate feed area at the tune of the inspection. Il was therefore not necessary for any
drums to have been placed directly on the ground surface at the time of the uispection
Die root cause of the violation was not the lack of adequate concrete sur-face area but that the
alternate feed oper-ators had just r-ecently been transfen-ed to the alternate feed circuit and did not
understand that the Pennit docs not per-mit the placement of non-water tight dr-ums on the gr-ourid
Page 4
surface. New operators had been rotated into the alternate feed processing area for the alter-nate feed
processing campaign. Tlie newly assigned oper-ators opened and emptied or partially emptied a
number of feed drums for the alternate feed batch placing some of the emptied open drums on the
engineered concrete pad and eight additional dnmis onto the gr'ound sur-face
b. Corrective Steps Taken to Prevent Re Occurrence of the Non Compliance
All alternate feed area operators have been retrained to understand which types ofdi'urns are
required to he placed on an approved hardened surface and not directly on the ground surface.
In addition, Denison has sought a fwther expansion of the alter-nate feed area concrete pad to
accommodate the number of drums anticipated for the spring 2012 alternate feed processing schedule
in a manner that provides more maneuvering space for handling the dnims and that will reduce the
chance that any damaged drums will inadvertently be placed directly on the ground surface Denison
submitted an engineering design to the Executive Secretary for approval on March 27 2012 At the
tirne of this wr-iting Denison is awaiting Executive Secretary approval of the design To prevent future
noncompliance the spr-uig alternate feed processing program will be delayed until the approval is
7-eceived and the expansion of the concrete pad is constr-ucted cured and placed into ser'\'ice
c. Date When Compliance JVas/JVill Be Achieved
Compliance was achiei'cd dur-ing the week of October 18, 2011 when the eight dr'ums placed on the
ground sur-face were removed fi-om the ground surface and placed on the existing concrete surface.
Following approval of the concrete pad expansion as built on October 24, 2011 the expanded
concrete area was placed into ser'\ice. Feed drums for the spring 2012 processing campaign are
either on the existing expanded concrete pad or are in the alter-nate feed storage area awaiting
approval and coristr-uction of the proposed expansion of the alternate feed processing area concrete
DRC FINDINGS - VIOLATION 1
The addition of an approved concrete pad area for management of feedstock at the White Mesa Mill is
a reasonable response to the DRC concerns. DRC notes that the further expansion of the concrete pad
was conditionally approved by the Co-Executive Secretary by letter dated April 9, 2012
This same violation was noted as an item recommended for action m a December 12, 2009 DRC
findings letter (2009 Annual Storm Water Inspection), and was formally enforced as a Confirmatory
Action in a September 1, 2011 DRC Letter (2010 Ajinual Storm Water Inspection). Since this is the
third time that DRC has advised DUSA of the Permit violation and the second formal enforcement
notice, a monetary penalty amount will be calculated for the violation.
VIOLATION 2
DUSA RESPONSE - VIOLATION 2
a. Root Cause of the Non Compliance
In 2010 Denison constructed a paved sur-face drainage ditch designed lo drain the area east of the
New Decontamination Pad The dr-auiage ditch was intended to pr-evcnt accumulation ofr-un on water
Page 5
on the r'oadway east of the New Decontamination Pad used by reagent delivery trucks in an effort to
minimize muddy conditions that could arise after hea\y rainfall. Die surface ditch conveyed nm on
water to a sump siUTOunded by an earthen bcrm near the southeast corner of the ore stor-age pad.
Ulien filled the sump is emptied by means of a sump pump through a Drisco pipeline and the pumped
water is i-elunied to the New Decontamination Pad sump.
Die Mill exper-ienced high rcurifall during October 2011. One of the rainfall events over-topped both
the sur-face ditch and the collection sump before Mill operations personnel were able to activate the
pump return system lo empty the sump The overtopping resulted in breakdown and canyover ofberm
soils and water creating the r-ills and cariTOver obser^'cd by DRC dur-ing the October 2011
uispection.
b. Corrective Steps Taken to Prevent Re Occurrence of the Non Compliance
Denison has uriplernented more frequent inspections of the ditch and sump system and more frequent
pumpuig/ernptymg ofithe sump during and after rainstor-m events lo prevent a reair-rence of the
over-flow situation.
c. Date When Compliance Was/Jfill Be Achieved
Compliance was achieved during October 2011 when the over-filled sump was pumped out to the New
Decontamination Pad The overtoj?ped sod berm was subsequently repaired dwingplanned
maintenance activities in April 2012
DRC FINDINGS -VIOLATION 2
The DUSA corrective actions appear to be appropriate. DRC will follow up with the effectiveness of
the action through future inspections. A monetary penalty will not be issued for this violation since
this IS the first time that the violation type has been cited.
DUSA RESPONSE - VIOLATION 3
a. Root Cause of the Non Compliance
Die kerosene storage tank in question consists of a hor-izontal tank on a metal saddle with a hose and
pump system all of which are located on an existing concrete pad surrounded by a 2 1/2 foot concrete
wall. Die dr'um and dr-um saddle had been moved bv operations personnel to a position near the wall
that resulted in the hose and pump handle being directly above the wall. Wlien the hose and handle
system dumped kerosene as it was used the drips fell outside the concrete pad area on and along the
outside edge of the wall dur-ing the October 2011 inspection DRC obser-\'ed staining on the wall and
spillage on the soil outside the concrete pad area which had resulted fi-om the hose and pump
dripping onto the wall
b. Corrective Steps Taken to Prevent Re Occurrence of the Non Compliance
Dur-ing March of 2012 Denison moved the lank and saddle and its associated hose and pump such
that the enlir-e system is withm the concrete pad area and no part is on or above the wall.
Page 6
c. Date }Mien Compliance Was/}} ill Be Achieved
Compliance was achieved during the October 2011 inspection when the visibly stained soils outside
the concrete j:>ad and wall were r-ernoved and disposed in the tailings cells Die tank saddle and pump
wer-e subsequently moved further back inside the concrete pad area and the stained concrete wall was
brush scr'ubbed dur ing planned maintenance activities in Mar-ch 2012.
DRC FINDINGS -VIOLATION 3
The DUSA corrective actions appear to be appropriate. A monetary penalty will not be issued for this
violation since this is the first time that it has been cited.
DUSA RESPONSE - VIOLATION 4
a. Root Cause of the Non Compliance
The Mill fior-mer'ly stored unopened oil dr-ums for maintenance or Mill area use on one of three
horizontal t^vo tier r-acks outside the maintenance ar-ea. Each r-ack had an attached drip collection
pan below and in fi-orit of the rack to collect any leaked fiuids from the bungs or caps of the horizontal
drums. One of the r-acks with its attached drip pan was placed on uneven ground such that the rack
and plan tilted down at one end Leaked fluids accumulated at the louver end of the lilted pan and
over-topped the pan at the low end staining the siuTOunding soils
b. Corrective Steps Taken to Prevent Re Occurrence of the Non Compliance
During the October 2011 inspection the spilled fluids were collected fi-om the drain pan and the
stained soils outside the collection pan were removed and disposed in the ladings cells The hor-izorilal
dr'um racks were removed from service and the dr-ums placed upright in new individual spill
pr-evention pallets during planned maintenance activities in March 2012.
c. Date }Vhen Compliance }} as/}} ill Be Achieved
Compliance was achieved dwuig the October 2011 inspection when the spilled fiuids and stained
soils were removed and disposed in the tailings cells.
DRC FINDINGS - VIOLATION 4
The DUSA corrective actions appear lo be are appropriate. A monetary penalty will not be issued for
this violation since this is the first time that it has been cited.
DUSA RESPONSE - VIOLATION 5
a Root Cause of the Non Compliance
Die New Decontamination Pad wash water pump is positioned on a small concrete fooling which is
set directly on bare ground Leaks from packing in the pump which ewe not directly above the
Page 7
concrete footing can r-each the bare ground sur-face. Due lo the natur-e of the jnimps service it has not
been possible to ensur-e zero leakage ofpacking and joints 100 percent of the pumps serTice hours. As
a result additional concr-ele coverage to pr-olect soil from occasional leaks of re cu-culated wash
water fi-om the pump will be r-equir-ed.
b. Corrective Steps Taken to Prevent Re Occurrence of the Non Compliance
Denison has prepared a design modification lo the New Decontamination Pad pump system. A design
dr-awing has been provided as Attachment 1 lo this submittal. The system modification will be
constnicted within 15 days of Denison s receipt of the Executive Secretary s approval ofithe design
dr-awuigs.
c. Date }}'hen Compliance }Vas/}Vill Be Achieved
Compliance will be achieved when the modification is constructed within 15 days of receipt of the
Executive Secretary approval for the design drawings.
DRC FINDINGS -VIOLATION 5
The DUSA corrective actions appear to be appropriate. DRC notes that the construction of the new
decontamination pad pump sump design drawing included with the DUSA April 12, 2012 response
was conditionally approved by the Co-Executive Secretary on April 18, 2012.
A monetary penalty will not be issued for this violation since this is the first time that it has been
cited
2. Civil Penalty^ CalcuJation
WATER QUALITY PENALTY CRITERIA
According to R317-1-8 (Penalty Criteria for Civil Settlement Negotiations), the penalty calculation
methodology consists of the following fomiula:
CIVIL PENALTY = PENALTY + ADJUSTMENTS - ECONOMIC AND LEGAL
CONSIDERATIONS
I. Categor> Selection (R317-1-8.3)
Tlie table below descnbes the Water Quality penalty categones.
Water Qualit> Penalty Categories (UAC R317-1-8.3)
Category A - $7,000 to $10,000 per day. Violations with high impact on public health and the
environment to include:
Categor>' A.l - Discharges which result in documented public health effects and/or significant
environmental damage.
Category' A.2 - Any type of violation not mentioned above severe enough to warrant a penalty
assessment under category A.
Page 8
Category- B - $2,000 to $7,000 per day. Major violations of the Utah Water Pollution Control Act,
associated regulations, permits or orders to include:
Category' B.l - Discharges which likely caused or would potentially cause (undocumented) public
health effects or significant environmental damage.
Category' B.2 - Creation of a serious hazard to public health or the environment.
Category B.3 - Illegal discharges containing significant quantities of concentrations of toxic or
hazardous materials.
Category' B.4 - Any type of violation not mentioned previously which warrants a penalty
assessment under cateeorv B.
Category C - $500 to $2,000 per day. Violations of the Utah Water Pollution Control Act,
associated regulations, permits or orders to include:
Category' C.l - Significant excursion of permit effluent limits.
Category C.2 - Substantial non-compliance with the requirements of a compliance schedule.
Categor>' C.3 - Substantial non-comphance with momtonng and reporting requirements.
Categor>' C.4 - Illegal discharge containing significant or concentrations of non-toxic or non-
hazardous materials.
Category C.5 - Any type of violation not mentioned previously wdiich warrants a penalty
assessment under category C.
Category- D - up to $500 per day. Minor violations of the Utah Water Pollution Control Act,
associated regulations, permits or orders to include:
Categor>' D.l - Minor excursion of permit effluent linnts.
Category' D.2 - Minor violations of compliance schedule requirements.
Category D.3 - Minor violations of reporting requirements.
Category- D.4 - Illegal discharges not covered in Categories A, B and C.
Category' D.5 - Any type of violations not mentioned previously which warrants a penalty
assessment under category D.
Per discussion above, a monetary penalty will only be issued for Violation 1.
Violation 1 — Penalty- Category and Dates of Noncompliance
Penalty- Categor>': The penalty for Violation 1 will be calculated as Category C.3 Substantial non-
compliance with monitor-ing and Repor-ting Requirements with a penalty minimum of $500 per day
and a penalty maximum of $2,000 per day.
DRC considers Categor}^ C to be conservative based on the multiple observations by DRC of
feedstock management in violation of the Part I D.l 1 of the Permit.
Calculation of violation days: Violation 1 is based on a single observation by DRC dunng the 2011
annual stomi water inspecfion, therefore, the penalty will be calculated based on 1 day.
The proposed maximum penalty, therefore, would be calculated for 1 day at $2,000 per day is $2,000.
ASSIGNED PENALTY AMOUNT WITHIN CATEGORY D.5
DRC consideration of credit as detailed in the Administrative Penalty Policy follows-
Page 9
A History of compliance or non-compliance:
Under UAC R317-1-8.3(A), two factors need to be considered, including previous violations
and degree of recidivism.
DRC Finding: DRC notes that the Co-Executive Secretary issued the same feedstock
violation to DUSA previously m a Confirmatory Action Letter dated September 1, 2011.
A credit of 50% will be granted in the penalty calculation since this is the first time a penalty
has been calculated for this violation type.
B. Degree of w illfulness and/or negligence:
Four factors need to be considered under the requirements of UAC R317-1-8.3(B), including:
1. How much control the violator had over and the foreseeability of the events constituting
the violation;
2. Whether the violator made or could have made reasonable efforts to prevent the violation;
3. Wliether the violator knew of the legal requirements which were violated;
4. Degree of recalcitrance.
DRC Hnds that:
DUSA had been given wntten forewarning regarding this violation type by DRC during 2009
and 2010. DUSA had control over the violation. Per the DUSA 4/12/12 response to the NOV,
the violation resulted from "alternate feed operators had just recently been transferred to the
alternate feed circuit and did not understand that the Pemnt does not allow the placement of
non-water-tight dnims on the ground surface." DRC would expect that DUSA would have
trained the operators to prevent the violation. DUSA was aware of the legal requirements
which are clearly stated in the Ground Water Quality Discharge Pemiit for the facility. DRC
ieels that the violations were the result of negligence but no recalcitrance. Therefore, DUSA
will be give 25% credit in this range.
C. Good faith efforts to comply:
Under UAC R31 7-1-8.3(C), this includes the Permittee's openness in dealing with the
violations, promptness in correction of problems, and degree of cooperation with the State.
Per the DUSA response to the NOV and the previous September 1, 2011 CAL, DUSA did
agree to install the concrete management area in order to comply with the Groundwater
Quality Discharge Pennit. Based on DUSA conduct in designing, obtaining approval, and
timely installation of the pad, DRC is granting 100% credit in this range
Penalt> Calculation
Category C, which is a minimum $500 per day penalty and a maximum of $2,000 per day penalty
Credits. 1/3 (max $166) History of Compliance- (50% credit) = $250
1/3 (max $166) Degree of Willfulness and/or Negligence: (25% credit) = S 125
1/3 (max $166) Good Faith Efforts to Comply- (100% credit) - $ 500
Page 10
Total credit - $ 875
Penalty per day violation: = $2,000 - $875 =$1,125
Number of violation days: XI
Total Category- Penalt>' (Gravity Component) = $ U125
ADJUSTMENTS
According to R317-1-8.3, the civil penalty shall be calculated by adding the following adjustments to
the penalty amount:
a. Economic benefit - These include costs which were delayed or avoided due to the non-
compliance. No economic benefit was gained by not providing the required storage for the
alternate feed stock management; therefore, no economic benefit calculation will be
included in the penalty calculation.
b. Investigative costs - No investigative costs are included for these violations. The
violations were the result of inspection findings by DRC.
Proposed Total Civil Penalt> for Docket No. UGW12-01: $ 1J25
Denison Mines (USA) Corp
Whne Mesa Mill
Settlement Agreement, Docket No UGW 12-01 SA
UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF
DENISON MINES (USA) CORP.
1050 17^" STREET, SUITE 950
DENVER, CO 80265
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
DOCKET NUMBER UGW12-01SA
This SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (hereinafter "AGREEMENT") is between
DENISON MINES (USA) CORP. (hereinafter "OPER4TOR ) and the UTAH WATER
QUALITY BOARD (hereinafter the '^BOARD"), concerning violations of the Utah Water
Quality Act (the Act), Utah Code Annotated ("UCA") §§19-5-101 to -124, and the Utah
Administrative Code ("UAC") R3I7-1 to -560.
1. The BOARD has authority to administer the Utah Water Quality Act, and the Utah
Administrative Code. UCA §§19-5-106, -115.
2. The CO-EXECUTIVE SECRETARY of the BOARD (hereinafter the "EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY") will administer the tenns and provisions of this AGREEMENT.
UCA §§19-5-106 and 115.
3 This AGREEMENT resolves the 5 violations cited in the NOTICE OF VIOLATION
and ORDER, Docket Number UGW12-01 (hereinafter the "NOTICE") issued to the
OPERATOR on March 7, 2012, by the BOARD. It does not in any way relieve the
OPERATOR froin any other obligation imposed under the Act or any other State or
Federal laws.
4. The parties now desu-e to resolve this matter fully without ftirther administrative
proceedings except to the extent provided herein by entenng into this AGREEMENT.
Entenng into tins AGREEMENT is not an admission of liability or factual allegation
set out in the NOTICE, nor is it an admission of or an agreement to any disputed facts
or disputed legal theories, nor is it an admission of any violafion of any law, rule,
regulation or permit by the OPERATOR.
5. In resolution of violations of the NOTICE referenced in Paragraph 3 of tliis
AGREEMENT, the OPERATOR agrees to pay a total penalty amount of $1,125
withm 30 calendar days of the effective date of this AGREEMENT by check. The
check will be made payable to the State of Utah, delivered or mailed to the Division of
Radiation Control, Department of Environmental Quality, 195 North 1950 West, P.O.
Box 144850, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4850. Tlie penalty has been detemiined using
the Penalty Criteria for Civil Settlement Negotiations, Utah Administrative Code
("UAC") R317-1-8 wliich considers such factors as the nature, severity and extent of the
violations, history of noncompliance, degree of willftilness and/or negligence, good faith
Pace 1 of 2
Denison Mnies (US.A.) Corp
White Mesa Mill
Settlement Aejeement, Docket No LIGW12-01 SA
efforts to comply, and economic benefit.
5. The deadline stipulated in item 5 above may be amended by prior wntten mutual
agreement of the parties. The party requesting the amendment must write to the other
party 14 days before the documented deadline and request an amendment of the
deadline. The other party will either agree to or deny the amendment in writing within
10 days of receipt of the request.
6. Nothing contained in this AGREEMENT shall preclude the BOARD fi-om taking
additional actions to include additional penalties against the OPERATOR for permit
violations not resolved by this AGREEMENT.
7. If an agreement between the OPERATOR and the EXECUTIVE SECRETARY cannot
be reached in a dispute ansing under any provision of this AGREEMENT, then the
OPERATOR or the EXECUTIVE SECRETARY may commence a proceeding with the
BOARD under the Utah Administr-ative Procedures Act, Utah Code Annotated §§63G-4-
101 to -601 to resolve the dispute. A final decision in any adjudicative proceeding shall be
subject to judicial review under applicable state law.
8. Nothing in this AGREEMENT shall constitute a waiver by the OPERATOR to raise in
defense any legal or factual contention for future allegations of noncompliance.
9. 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 winch the STATE may have against the OPERATOR, or any other person, fimi,
partnership or coiporation for any liability arising out of or relating in any way to the
release of pollutants to waters of the State.
AGREED to this day of , 2012.
DENISON MINES (USA) CORP UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD
By By
David Frydenlund Rusty Lundberg
DUSA Vice President and Counsel Co-Executive Secretary
Paye 2 of 2
Demson Mmes (USA) Corp
White Mesa Mill
Settlement Agreement, Docket No. UGW 12-0ISA
UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF
DENISON MINES (USA) CORP.
1050 17^" STREET, SUITE 950
DENVER, CO 80265
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
DOCKET NUMBER UGW12-01SA
This SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (hereinafter "AGREE^rENT") is bet\veen
DENISON MINES (USA) CORP. (hereinafter OPERATOR ) and the UTAH WATER
QUALITY BOARD (hereinafter the "BOARD"), concerning violations of the Utah Water
Quality Act (the Act), Ulah Code Annotated ("UCA ") §§19-5-101 to -124, and the Utah
Administrative Code ("UAC") R317-I to -560.
1. The BOARD has authority to administer the Utah Water Quality Act, and the Utah
Administrative Code. UCA §§19-5-106, -115.
2 The CO-EXECUTIVE SECRETARY of the BOARD (hereinafter the "EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY") will administer the temis and provisions of tills AGREEMENT.
UCA §§19-5-106 and 115.
3. This AGREEMENT resolves the 5 violations cited in the NOTICE OF \aOLATION
and ORDER, Docket Number UGW12-01 (hereinafter the "NOTICE") issued to the
OPERATOR on March 7, 2012, by the BOARD. It does not in any way relieve the
OPERATOR from any other obligation imposed under the Act or any other State or
Federal laws.
The parties now desire to resolve this matter fully without further administrative
proceedings except to the extent provided herein by entering into this AGREEMENT.
Entenng into this AGREEMENT is not an admission of liability or factual allegation
set out in the NOTICE, nor is it an admission of or an agreement to any disputed facts
or disputed legal theones, nor is it an admission of any violation of any law, mle,
regulation or pemiit by the OPERATOR.
hi resolution of violations of the NOTICE referenced in Paragraph 3 of this
AGREEMENT, the OPERATOR agrees to pay a total penalty amount of $1,125
within 30 calendar days of the effective date of this AGREEMENT by check. The
check will be made payable to the State of Utah, delivered or mailed to the Division of
Radiation Control, Department of Environmental Quality, 195 North 1950 West, P.O.
Box 144850, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4850. The penahy has been detemiined using
the Penalty Cr-iteria for Civil Settlement Negotiations, Ulah Administr-ative Code
("UAC") R317-1-8 winch considers such factors as the naUire, severity and extent of the
violations, history of noncompliance, degree of willfulness and/or negligence, good faith
Paee 1 of 2
Demson Mines (USA) Corp.
Wlute Mesa Mill
Settlement Agreement, Docket No. UGW 12-0ISA
efforts to comply, and economic benefit.
5. The deadline stipulated in item 5 above may be amended by pnor written mutual
agreement of the parties. The party requesting the amendment must v\Tite to the other
party 14 days before the documented deadline and request an amendment of the
deadline. The other party will either agree to or deny the amendment in writing within
10 days of receipt of the request.
6. Nothing contained in this AGREEMENT shall preclude the BOARD from taking
additional actions to include additional penalties against the OPERATOR for pemiit
violations not resolved by this AGREEMENT.
7. If an agreement between the OPERATOR and the EXECUTIVE SECRETARY cannot
be reached in a dispute arising under any provision of this AGREEMENT, then the
OPERATOR or the EXECUTIVE SECRETARY may commence a proceeding with the
BOARD under the Utah Administr-ative Procedures Act, Utah Code Annotated §§63G-4-
; 101 lo -601 to resolve the dispute. A final decision in any adjudicative proceeding shall be
I subject to judicial review under applicable state law.
8. Nothing in this AGREEMENT shall constitute a waiver by the OPERATOR to raise in
defense any legal or factual contention for future allegations of noncompliance.
9. 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 m law or
equity which the STATE may have against the OPERATOR, or any other person, funi,
partnership or corporation for any liability arising out of or relating in any way to the
release of pollutants to w aters of the State.
AGREED to this day of , 2012.
DENISON MINES (USA) CORP UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD
By.
David Frydenlund
DUSA Vice President and Counsel
By.
Rusty Lundberg
Co-Executive Secretary
Pace 2 of 2