DRC-2011-007623 - 0901a0688028f7f2

Department of
Environmental QjiialTt^
State of Utah
GARY R. HERBERT
Governor
GREG BELL
Lieutenant Gove!^r H
September 22, 2011
CERTIFIED MAIL
(Retum Receipt Requested)
Ms. Jo Ann Tischler
Director, Compliance and Permitting
Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (DUSA)
1050 17* Street, Ste. 950 j
Denver, CO 80225
Amanda Smith'
Executive Director
DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
Rusty Lundberg
Director
O
to
ja
cr
a
o
Stal Service TM .•.••>
CERTIFIED MAIL ,, RECEIPT
(Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided)
For dellveiy.lnformatlon visit our website at www.usps com^i
^ 1 S •l'--;! Isr. • fU- .
Postage
Certified Fee
Retum Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required)
Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required)
$
Postmark
Here
Postage
Certified Fee
Retum Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required)
Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required)
Postmark
Here
Postage
Certified Fee
Retum Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required)
Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required)
Postmark
Here
Postage
Certified Fee
Retum Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required)
Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required)
Postmark
Here
Notice of Enforcement Discretion UGW370004/ RL
Ms. Jo Ann Tischler
Director, Compliance and Permitting
Denison Mines (USA) Corp (DUSA)
1050 17th Street, Ste 950
Denver, CO 80225 ' " - -
PS Form 3800, August 2006 See Reverse for Instructions
Dear Ms. Tischler:
SUBJECT: Cell 4A Leak Detection System (LDS) White Mesa Uranium Mill
Failure of Electronic Continuous Data Logging System
Notice of Enforcement Discretion for June 3, 2011 through July 5, 2011
Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit UGW370004
References:
a. The subject DUSA Ground Water Discharge Permit, J*art I.E.8.a. 1 requires that "the Permittee
shall provide continuous operation of the leak detection system pumping and monitoring
equipment, including, but not limited to, the submersible pump.. .and flow meter equipment
approved.. .Failure of any LDS pumping or monitoring equipment not repaired or rriade fully
operational within 24-hours of discovery shall constitute of a failure of BAT, and a violation of
this Permit."
b. July 6, 2011 DUSA Letter regarding the above subject recognizes DUSA's failure to
continuously monitor the Cell 4A LDS from June 3, 2011 through June 27, 2011. The July 6,
2011 DUSA letter also discusses the history of this issue from June 27, 2011 through July 5,
2011.
c. Record of Interview with R. Palmer of DUSA on August 10, 2011.
d. UAC R317-6-6.13, states that, "The permittee shall notify the Executive Secretary within 24
hours of the discovery of any mechanical or discharge system failures that could affect the
chemical characteristics or volume of the discharge. A written statement confirming the oral
report shall be submitted to the Executive Secretary within five days of the failure."
After review of this non-compliance with DUSA's Ground Water Discharge Permit Part I.E.8, noted in
reference (a), the Executive Secretary hereby issues this Notice of Enforcement Discretion on this issue
from June 3, 2011 through July 5, 2011. This decision was made from the items provided in references (a)
through (d) above.
195 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.utah. f;o\'
Printed on 100% recycled paper
Page 2 c
Explanation:
Fieference (b) states that continuous recording by the LDS electronic logging system was not done for the
24-day period mentioned above. In reference (c) it was mentioned that daily recording of the solution level
in the Cell 4A LDS was done manually by DUSA personnel, continuous display of the water level in the
LDS was provided by the equipment, and the pumping system was not compromised. Per reference (b),
only continuous recording of the history in the LDS was not done by the equipment.
On July 27, 2011 it was identified that the logging system was not uploading or recording, and no LDS
level logging data was available since June 3, 2011.
Per reference (b), the manufacturer of the logging system recommended upgrading of the storage flash
drive devices and software. DUSA planned to install and test these new items. Thereafter, daily
monitoring of the performance of the new items was to take place through August 31, 2011.
It appears DUSA nearly met the affirmative defense requirements of the Ground Water Discharge Permit
Part I.G.3.C. The defense is discussed in reference (b), for the 24-day time period in question, as well as
through July 5, 2011. However, a late written notice, via reference (b) was provided with respect to
reference (d). That is, the notice of July 6, 2011, reference (b), was provided 9 calendar days after
discovery of the failure, rather than within 5 calendar-days required by reference (d).
It appears that DUSA's arguments, for the 24-day period of time in question, i.e. June 3, 2011 through June
27, 2011, and from that period through July 5, 2011, as documented in reference (b), are reasonable.
Please be advised that failure to meet the requirements of reference (a), and the commitments made,
following July 5, 2011, per reference (b), may result in escalated enforcement action. Please contact Mr.
Rupp of DRC at 801-536-4023, if you have questions in this regard.
UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD
Rusty Lundberg, Co-Executive Secretary
DAR:dr
F:\drupp\DUSA\NOVs\2011-12\N0ED Cell 4A Failure of Electronic Datalogger.doc
.„„JL„^.: ^^...(MMI
—4^—
- --^-^--^--^
^Au^.k_^(^
.l.?LV.jLri. ^JpmctuJ:_Wi:«J4^-^ - —- -
.Ji^^^^i^-^ i.k__j>^?2v^i^^^ ^
—H-
State of Utah
GARY R. HERBERT
Governor
GREG BELL
Lieutenant Governor
department of
Environmental Quality
Amanda Smith
Executive Director
DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
Rusty Lundberg
Director
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
References:
MEMORANDUM
Phillip Goble and Rusty Lundberg
David Rupp^
September 14, 2011
Failure of Electronic Continuous Data Logging System
Cell 4A Leak Detection System (LDS)
Denison Mines (DUSA), White Mesa Uranium Mill
a. DUSA Ground Water Discharge Permit Part I.E.S.a. 1 requires that "the Permittee shall provide
continuous operation of the leak detection system pumping and monitoring equipment,
including, but not limited to, the submersible pump.. .and flow meter equipment
approved.. .Failure of any LDS pumping or monitoring equipment not repaired or made fully
operational within 24-hours of discovery shall constitute of a failure of BAT, and a violation of
this Permit."
b. July 6, 2011 DUSA Letter regarding the above subject, and failure to continuously monitor the
Cell 4A LDS from June 3, 2011 through June 27, 2011. The July 6, 2011 DUSA letter also
rehearses the history of this issue through July 5, 2011.
c. Interview with R. Palmer of DUSA on August 10, 2011.
Per reference (a) above, continuous operation of the LDS monitoring equipment is required. This key
requirement was not met. However, I believe the DUSA argument for affirmative defense is valid for the
period of June 3, 2011 through July 5, 2011, except that the written notice was not given until eight full
days after the discovery of the violation. Events beyond July 5, 2011 are not documented by the references
above, nor addressed by this MEMO.
Reference (b) states that continuous operation of the electronic LDS log was not done for a 24-day period
mentioned above. In reference (c) it is mentioned that daily recording of the solution level in the Cell 4A
LDS was done manually by DUSA personnel- Continuous display of the water level in the LDS was
provided by the equipment, and the pumping system was not compromised. Again, per reference (b), only
continuous recording of the water level history in the LDS was not done by the equipment.
On July 27, 2011 it was identified that the system was not uploading or recording.
Per reference (b), the manufacturer of the logging system recommended upgrading of the storage flash
drive devices and software. DUSA planned to install and test these new items. Daily monitoring of the
performance of the new items was to take place through August 31, 2011.
195 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.utah.gov
Printed on 100% recycled paper
Page 2
Affirmative Defense:
It appears DUSA has met the affirmative defense requirements under the Ground Water Discharge Permit
Part 1.G.3.C, as stated in reference (b) for the 24-day time period in question of no logging, as well as
through July 5, 2011. The affirmative defense argument is reiterated in verbatim below:
"a) Notification. By virtue of the initial oral notification given to UDEQ at 3:30 PM on Tuesday, June 28,
2011 (within 24 hours ofthe discovery) and this written notice, Denison has submitted notification
according to UAC R317-6-6.13."
"b) Failure was not Intentional or Caused by the Permittee's Negligence
The failure ofthe LDS instrumentation to record level data was not caused by Denison's negligence, either
in action or in failure to act. As discussed above. Mill personnel made weekly attempts to download the
level data, as well as daily visits to hand record and preserve data. The equipment malfunctioned between
monitoring events. Mill personnel have made efforts, in progress, to diagnose and correct the system,
"c) The Permittee has Taken Adequate Measures to Meet Permit Conditions
Mill personnel have made multiple efforts to diagnose and correct the system, and proposed corrections to
the system are in progress. During the period in question, all of the relevant data was recorded manually to
ensure compliance with the applicable requirements in the Permit. The solution level within the LDS and
the flow rate were within the prescribed limits.
"d) Denison has taken adequate measures to meet Permit conditions in a timely manner.
The provisions of the Permit were implemented immediately. UDEQ was notified within 24 hours of
discovery ofthe solution measurement information. In each case when the data recording system
malfunctioned, it was reset immediately upon discovery by Mill environmental personnel.
"e) The Provisions of UCA 19-5-107 Have Not Been Violated
The provisions of Utah Code 19-5-107 have not been violated. There has been no discharge of a pollutant
into waters ofthe state. Denison has not caused pollution which constitutes a menace to public health and
welfare, or is harmful to wildlife, fish or aquatic life, or impairs domestic, agricultural, industrial,
recreational, or other beneficial uses of water, nor has Denison placed or caused to be placed any waste in a
location where there is probable cause to believe it will cause pollution.
"There was no discharge of solutions from the Mill's tailings impoundments."
Albeit for the late written notice, i.e. July 6, 2011 (8-full days after discovery) I concur with the DUSA
argument for affirmative defense, for the 24-day period of time in question, i.e. June 3, 2011 through June
27, 2011, and this period through July 5, 2011, as documented in reference (b).
I recommend we respond to their petition with this in mind.
-END-
' i-iiiaii 11 " '
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
1050 17th Street, Suite 950
^ ^ . . • i Denver, CO 80265
Oti^UUi^ . USA
I ^ Tel: [phone]
Fax:[phone]
www.denisonmines.com
July 6, 2011
VIA E-MAIL AND OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
Rusty Lundberg, Co-Executive Secretary
Utah Water Quality Board
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
195 North 1950 West
P.O. Box 144810
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4810
Re: State of Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit No. UGW370004 White Mesa Uranium Mill -
Notice Pursuant to Part I.G.3 of the Permit and UAC R317-6-6.16(C)
Dear Mr. Lundberg:
Please take notice pursuant to Part I.G.3 of the White Mesa Mill's (the "Mill's") State of Utah Groundwater
Discharge Permit No. UGW370004 (the "Permit") and Utah Administrative Code ("UAC") R313-6-6.16(C) that
Denison Mines (USA) Corp. ("Denison"), as operator of the Mill and holder of the Permit, failed to meet the
Best Available Technology ("BAT") standards in Part I.E.S.a.l of the Permit, by not providing continuous
operation of the Cell 4A leak detection system ("LDS") data recording equipment, as described in more detail
below.
This failure was discovered on Monday, June 27, 2011. Initial notice of this failure to maintain BAT was given
by telephone to Mr. David Rupp of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality at 3:30pm on Wednesday
June 28, 2011 at 801-536-4023 (within 24 hours of the discovery).
1. Facts and Background Information
a) The Cell 4A LDS instrumentation was installed in August 2008.
b) Section I.E.S.a.l of the Permit requires that "the Permittee shall provide continuous operation of the
leak detection system pumping and monitoring equipment, including, but not limited to, the
submersible pump, pump controller, head monitoring, and flow meter equipment approved by the
Executive Secretary. Failure of any LDS pumping or monitoring equipment not repaired or made fully
operational within 24-hours of discovery shall constitute a failure of BAT, and a violation of this
permit."
c) The Mill identified on June 27, 2011, at the time of the weekly tailings inspection, that the electronic
LDS log was not operating, and determined from review of the data log that it had not operated since
June 3, 2011.
N:\Notices\Cell 4A LDS notice 07.06.11\07.06.11 Notice to RLundberg Cell 4A LDS data.doc
Letter to Mr. Rusty Lundberg
July 6, 2011
Page 2
d) At the time of discovery, Mill environmental personnel immediately rebooted the data computer, reset
the system, and data logging resumed.
e) The data logging system computer and data storage flash drive have the capacity to store
approximately six weeks of data.
f) Mill environmental technicians manually record the same data daily during daily tailings inspections.
That is all data relative for BAT compliance was manually recorded even during the periods of
electronic data outage.
g) Environmental technicians have historically encountered periods when data could not be
downloaded from the Cell 4A LDS storage device. Environmental technicians were under the
mistaken impression that the system required time for data uploads from the level sensor to the data
computer, during which downloads were not feasible.
h) During the period from June 3 to June 27, encompassing three weekly attempts at the LDS data
download, environmental technicians assumed at each unsuccessful attempt that the system was
uploading, and that data was being stored for collection during a subsequent week. Further
inspection on June 27 identified that the system was not uploading, but had stopped recording.
i) Following theinitial discovery ofthe system malfunction, Mill environmental personnel monitored the
system more closely in order to diagnose the cause of the shutdown. The data logger continued to
have the same problems with electronic shutdowns that required rebooting and resetting as follows:
Date system Days of Date of Days of
rebooted operation before malfunction missing data
malfunction before next
identified
June 27 2 June 29 2
July 1 4 July 5 1
2. Actions Taken
Upon identification of the initial malfunction, Denison took the following actions:
a) Mill environmental personnel notified Denison Corporate environmental staff;
b) The data computer was rebooted and the logger reset; and
c) Environmental technicians observed the system more frequently to confirm whether the correction
had rectified the malfunction, that is, whether the system would mn continuously.
When the more frequent monitoring identified the recurring malfunction, Denison took the following actions:
a) Mill environmental personnel notified Denison,Corporate environmental staff;
b) Mill environmental technicians contacted the manufacturer's technical team for assistance in
diagnosing the cause of the malfunction;
DENISOlJOJj
MINES
Letter to Mr. Rusty Lundberg^
July 6, 2011
Page 3
c) Mill environmental personnel developed a stepwise approach for isolating the cause of repeqted
system failure, as described in Section 4, below.
3. Root Cause
The root cause analysis is as follows:
a) Environmental technicians have historically encountered periods when data could not.be downloaded
from the Cell 4A LDS storage device. Environmental technicians were under the mistaken
impression that the system required time for data uploads from the level sensor to the data computer,
during which downloads were not feasible. Environmental technicians were also aware that the
storage system could maintain up to six weeks of data, and assumed that because data was being
stored for multiple weeks, it was sufficient to return the following week for the data, that could not be
downloaded.
b) During the period from June 3 to June 27, encompassing three weekly attempts at the LDS data
download, environmental technicians assumed at each unsuccessful attempt that the system was
uploading, and that data was being stored for collection during a subsequent week. Further
inspection on June 27 identified that the system was not uploading, but had stopped recording.
c) Environmental technicians were also aware that daily manual recording of the same data as collected
by the electronic logger is used for reporting, and mistakenly assumed that the electronic data was
redundant and not required.
4. Actions That Will be Taken to Prevent a Reoccurrence of this Incident
The following actions will be taken to prevent a re-occurrence of this incident:
a) Mill environmental technicians are in the process of procuring, installing, and testing one or more
alternate, more durable, data storage flash drive devices, consistent with the manufacturer's technical
team recommendation. Installation and testing will be complete by July 31, 2011.
b) Mill environmental technicians will attempt to download, install and test an upgraded version of the
data management software, consistent with the manufacturer's technical team recommendation.
Installation and testing will be complete by July 31, 2011.
c) Mill environmental personnel will monitor the newly installed data device and software daily for one
month after installation, through August 31, 2011, to confirm whether either or both of these were the
cause of the repeated outages.
d) If the modifications have not corrected the recurring outages by August 31, 2011, Denison will
evaluate further steps, potentially including repair or replacement of the storage computer. Denison
will develop and discuss a schedule for further steps with DRC at that time.
5. Affirmative Defense
Denison believes that the affirmative defense in Part l.G.S.c) of the Permit should be applicable to this
incident, for the following reasons:
DENISO
MINES
Letter to Mr. Rusty Lundberg
July 6, 2011
Page 4
a) Notification
By virtue ofthe initial oral notification given to UDEQ at 3:30 PM on Tuesday, June 28, 2011 (within 24 hours
ofthe discovery) and this written notice, Denison has submitted notification according to UAC R317-6-6.13.
b) Failure was not Intentional or Caused by the Permittee's Negligence
The failure of the LDS instrumentation to record level data was not caused by Denison's negligence, either in
action or in failure to act. As discussed above. Mill personnel made weekly attempts to download the level
data, as well as daily visits to hand record and preserve data. The equipment malfunctioned between
monitoring events. Mill personnel have made efforts, in progress, to diagnose and correct the system.
c) The Permittee has Taken Adequate Measures to Meet Permit Conditions
Mill personnel have made multiple efforts to diagnose and correct the system, and proposed corrections to the
system are in progress. During the period in question, all ofthe relevant data was recorded manually to ensure
compliance with the applicable requirements in the Permit. The solution level within the LDS and the flow rate
were within the prescribed limits.
d) Denison has taken adequate measures to meet Permit conditions in a timely manner.
The provisions of the Permit were implemented immediately. UDEQ was notified within 24 hours of discovery
of the solution measurement infonnation. In each case when the data recording system malfunctioned, it was
reset immediately upon discovery by Mill environmental personnel.
e) The Provisions of UCA 19-5-107 Have Not Been Violated
The provisions of Utah Code 19-5-107 have not been violated. There has been no discharge of a pollutant
into waters of the state. Denison has not caused pollution which constitutes a menace to public health and
welfare, or is harmful to wildlife, fish or aquatic life, or impairs domestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational, or
other beneficial uses of water, nor has Denison placed or caused to be placed any waste in a location where
there is probable causie to believe it will cause pollution.
There was no discharge of solutions from the Mill's tailings impoundments.
Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions or require any further information.
Yours very truly,
DENISON MINES (USA) CORP.
Jo Ann Tischler
Director, Compliance and Permitting
DENISO
MINES
f^V ^".^
0^ ^
lu
Mi ure
.A the. Cii^ Ceti -jf ^ (24A VVCV$ OrtTj