DRC-2012-001565 - 0901a068802e22fa

1^
State of Utah
GARYR HERBERT
Govemor
GREG BELL
Lieutennnt Governor
Department of
Environmental Quality
Amanda Smith
Exeattive Director
DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
Rusty Lundberg
Director
DRC-
May 23, 2012
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURNED RECEIPT REOUESTED
Mr. David C. Frydenlund
Vice President, Regulatory Affairs and Counsel
Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (DUSA)
Independence Plaza, Suite 950
1050 Seventeenth Street
Denver, CO 80265
ru
LD a
r-^
LO
cr
r-
• a o
CD
r=\
a
a
p-
U.S. Postal Service Tr.i
CERTIFIED MAILi., RECEIPT
(Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided)
1 i^,. u S E '
Postage
Certitied Fee
$
1 Postage
Certitied Fee
1
DH
David C Frydenlund
Vice President & General Counsel
Denison Mines (USA) Corp (DUSA)
105017th ST STE 950
Denver CO 80265
PS Form 3800. August 2006 See Reverse for Instriirlions
RE: 4th Quarter 2011 Chloroform Monitoring Report for the Chlorofonn Contamination
hivestigafion, Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (hereafter "DUSA"), White Mesa Uranium
Mill, near Blanding, Utah, Closeout Letter and Notice of Enforcement Discretion.
Dear Mr. Frydenlund:
The Utah Division of Radiation Control (hereafter "DRC") has completed its review of 4th
Quarter, 2011 Chloroform Monitoring Report (hereafter "Report") for the Chloroform
Contaminafion Investigation.
The review was based on compliance with the Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit Number
UGW370004 (hereafter "Permit") and the DUSA Quality Assurance Plan (hereafter "QAP").
During the DRC review, it was found that DUSA failed to meet the requirements found in
Secfions 4.3.3 and 9.1.4 of the QAP.
Section 4.3.3 ofthe QAP requires:
"4.3.3. Field Duplicates
One Duplicate set of samples submitted with each Batch (defined in Section 4 3.4) of samples
(DTG, Field and Laboratoiy Quality Assurance/Quality Control 7 8), taken from one ofthe wells
being sampled and will be submitted to the Analytical Laboratory and analyzed for all
contaminants listed in Table 2 ofthe GWDP (EPA SW-846, Chapter fSection 3.4.1). Section
4.3.4 Definition of "Batch "For the purposes of this Plan, a Batch is defined as 20 or fewer
samples (PA SW-846, Chapter 1, Section 5.0, page 23)
195 North 1950 West • SaU Lake City, UT
Mailing Address P 0 Box 144850 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850
Telephone [phone] • Fax <801) 533-4097 'TDD [phone]
wiA W deq utah gov
Printed on lOC-o recycled paper
Page 2
DUSA documented in the Report that 15 of the 27 chloroform samples collected in 4th quarter
monitonng event in November 2011, including TW4-6, were not analyzed within the required
holding times for VOCs. This is a violafion of Section 8.2 and Table 1 of the QAP. The
remaining 12 samples, including TW4-70 (the duplicate for TW4-6), were analyzed within the
required holding time required for VOCs. The sample for TW4-3 and its duplicate sample TW4-
65 were among the samples that meet the required holding times and meet the requirement in
Secfion 4.3.3 ofthe QAP.
DUSA appropnately resampled for the 15 samples with holding time problems for VOCs;
however, no duplicate sample was collected for the fifteen samples that were re-collected and
analyzed in December 2011. This is a violation of Secfion 4.3.3 of the QAP.
Section 9.1.4 of the QAP requires:
"9.1.4 (a) Relative Percent Difference
RPDs will be calculated in comparisons of duplicate and original field sample results.
Non-conformance will exist when the RPD > 20%, unless the measured activities are less
than 5 times the required detection limit (Standard Methods, 1998) (EPA Contract
Laboratoiy Program National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review, February
1994, 9240.1-05-01, p. 25f "
The chloroform analytical results companson between the sample for TW4-6 and its duplicate
sample TW4-70 RPD >20% and is a violation of Section 4.3.3 ofthe QAP (see the tablebelow).
Parameter GWQS TW4-6 TW4-70 RPD
Chloroform 70 iigfL 21 Mg/L 50 Mg/L 81
Notice of Enforcement Discretion
The Executive Secretary has decided to use enforcement discretion in this matter and accept
DUSA conecfive actions presented in Secfion 6.1 (Correcfive Actions) of the Report. Be advised
that the higher chlorofomi concentration between well TW4-6 (21 pg/1) and it duplicate TW4-70
(50 |ig/l) will be used for compliance purposes.
The remainder of the items reviewed were found to be conducted in compliance with the Permit
and QAP. This letter constitutes a closeout of the 4'^ Quarter, 2011 Chloroform Monitoring
Report for the Chloroform Contamination Investigafion.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions or comments regarding
this letter, please contact Dean Henderson at [phone].
Sincerely,
Rusty Lundberg LJ
Director