DRC-2011-001449 - 0901a068801fb309

Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
1050 17th Street, Suite 950
Denver, CO 80265
USA
Tel: [phone]
Fax : [phone]
www.denisohmines.com
DENISO
MINES
January 26,2011
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 IVIesa Uranium IMill -
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 ofthe Permit, failed to meet the
28-day holding time for mercury analysis in fourth quarter 2010 groundwater samples as required by the
approved version of the Mill's Quality Assurance Plan ("QAP").
Initial notice of this failure was given by telephone to Mr. Philip Goble of the Utah Department of
Environmental Quality ("UDEQ") at approximately 1:15pm on Wednesday January 19, 2011 at 801-536-4262
(within 24 hours of the discovery).
1. Facts and Background Information
a) Denison performed its routine review of laboratory data from Energy Laboratories ("EL") and America
West Analytical Laboratories for compliance with requirements of the QAP during the week of
January 17, 2011.
b) The currently approved Denison White Mesa Mill QAP, Tabie 1, requires the use of Method E200.8
for the analysis of mercury. This table also requires a 28 day holding time for mercury; that is, that
samples be analyzed for mercury within 28 days of the date of sample collection.
c) EL has performed all the metals analyses for the Mill's groundwater program, since prior to 1995. EL
performed the mercury analysis for the Mill's fourth quarter 2010 groundwater samples. EL has
consistently been able to meet a 28 day holding time for mercury samples; that is, they have
consistently performed mercury analysis within 28 days of the sample collection.
d) During the week of January 17, 2011, Denison identified that 10 groundwater samples and one
duplicate sample analyzed by EL for mercury were analyzed after the 28 day holding time had
N:\Notices\GW Hg hold time notice 01.24.11\01.26.11_Notice_to_RLundberg_Hg_hold_times.doc
Letter to Mr. Rusty Lundberg
January 26, 2011
Page 2
expired. Denison contacted EL regarding the lab's failure to meet the holding time required in the
QAP.
e) EL is currently Utah State certified for, and uses for Denison's groundwater analyseSi Method 200.8
Determination of Trace Elements in Water and Wastes by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass
Spectrometry, Revision 5.4 dated 1994. This method, which is required by the QAP, lists the holding
time for mercury as 6 months. This method is the currently promulgated method per 40 CFR 141 anc
143 (September 1998). A proposed update, Draft Revision 5.5, has not been approved by EPA.
f) Denison collected all the samples for groundwater mercury during the period from November 15 td
November 29, 2010. EL received all of Denison's fourth quarter groundwater mercury samples
during the period from November 19, 2010 through November 24, 2010. Due to the laboratory staff
schedules during the holidays, EL did not have enough available staff to analyze the mercury
samples within the 28 day hold time, which expired on December 13, 2010 for the earliest, anc
December 28, 2010 for the latest of the mercury samples.
g) Denison received the initial data reports containing two of the mercury results on December 30, 2010;
too late to perform re-sampling within the fourth quarter. Denison received the remainder of the
needed data reports required for the quality assurance review, after the close ofthe fourth quarter, on
January 6, 2011.
h) Following Denison's review of the data, during phone conversations and emails with EL, the lab
advised Denison that:
a. there was room for confusion in interpreting the discrepancy between the 6-month hold time
identified in Method 200.8 Revision 5.4 and the 28-day hold time identified in 40 CFR 14l|
and 143. This is particularly so given footnote 3 in the table in 40 CFR 141.23(k)(2), which
states that:
"In all cases, samples should be analyzed as soon after collection as possible.
Follow additional (if any) information on preservation, containers or holding times that
is specified in the method."
This could be interpreted to mean that the more specific holding time requirement in the
method should prevail over the holding time specified in the table, and
b. EL assumed the 6-month hold time in approved Method 200.8 Revision 5.4 was applicable
Based on EL's interpretation, EL assumed that the 6-month hold time was applicable and the
samples were not out of hold.
Denison concluded that regardless of the holding time stated in EL's certified Method, the 28-da^
hold time stated in the QAP should be considered correct and should be adhered to for the following
reasons:
a. The Mill's QAP requires a 28-day holding time.
b. The September 1998 publication of 40 CFR 141 and 143 states a 28-day holding time
(notwithstanding footnote 3 referred to above).
c. Industry standards and practice appear to require a 28-day holding time for mercury.
d. In the draft revision 5.5 of Method E200.8, the holding time for mercury has been changed to
28 days, presumably to be consistent with industry practices and standards.
DENISO
MINES
Letter to Mr. Rusty Lundberg
January 26, 2011
Page 3
2. Action Taken
Following discussion with EL, and upon reaching the conclusion that the 28-day hold time was applicable and
had been exceeded, Denison took the following actions:
a) Denison provided phone notification to Mr. Philip Goble of the Utah Department of Environitienta
Quality on Wednesday January 19, 2011 at 801-536-4262 (during the week in which Denison
performed its review of the laboratory data and discovered the mistake). .
b) Denison re-contacted EL by email and informed the lab that:
a. The 28-day mercury hold time in the QAP is applicable and mandatory regardless of EL's
interpretation of a longer hold time as stated in their certified method.
b. El is required for all future samples to meet the 28-day hold time for mercury.
3. Root Cause
The root cause analysis is as follows.
a) There exists a discrepancy between the holding time stated in the approved Method 200.8 Revision
5.4, for which EL is certified, and other statements of holding time for this method, as appear in the
1998 40 CFR 141 and 143, and the proposed update to Method 200.8.
b) There was some confusion on the part of the lab in determining the applicable holding time. The lab
misinterpreted the discrepancy. Operating under the assumption that the 6-month holding time was
applicable, the lab did not analyze the samples in time or notify Denison in time to recollect samples
to meet a 28-day holding time.
4. Actions That Will be Taken to Prevent a Reoccurrence of this Incident
The following actions will have already been taken to prevent a reoccurrence of this incident:
a) As stated above, Denison re-contacted EL by email and informed the lab that:
a. The 28-day mercury hold time in the QAP is applicable and mandatory regardless of EL's
interpretation of a longer hold time as stated in their certified method.
b. El is required for all future samples to meet the 28-day hold time for mercury.
5. Affirmative Defense
Denison believes that the affirmative defense in Part I.G.3.C) of the Permit should be applicable to this
incident, for the following reasons:
a) Notification
By virtue of the initial oral notification given to UDEQ at Wednesday, January 19, 2011, and this written
notice, Denison has submitted notification under UAC R317-6-6.13.
b) Failure was not Intentional or Caused by the Permittee's Negligence
DENISO
MINES
Letter to Mr. Rusty Lundberg
January 26, 2011
Page 4
The exceedance of the mercury holding time was not intentional or caused by Denison's negligence, either in
action or in failure to act. Denison used diligence in implementing the improved QA/QC review protocols
which resulted in the identification of the holding time exceedance. Similarly, the exceedance was not caused
by EL's negligence. EL reviewed its Utah Method Certification and Methods description to determine the
applicable holding tinrie; however, during that review, EL misinterpreted an existing discrepancy in the
requirements within the methods.
c) The Permittee has Taken Adequate Measures to Meet Permit Conditions
Denison has taken adequate measures to meet Permit conditions in a timely manner. Denison contacted
UDEQ the same day that Denison corporate staff had received enough information to conclude and confirm
that a holding time exceedance had occurred. Denison has already notified the laboratory in writing that the
laboratory's interpretation was erroneous, and that EL is required to meet the conditions in Denison's
groundwater QAP.
d) TheProvisionsof 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.
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
cc: Rich Bartlett
David C. Frydenlund
Harold R. Roberts
David E. Turk
Central files
DENISO
MINES