DRC-2011-007093 - 0901a06880253ebe

July 20, 2011
VIA E-MAIL AND OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
Mr. Rusty Lundberg
Utah Department of Environnnental Quality
195 North 1950 West
P.O. Box 144850
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850
^Deribfin lUFneM'^SA) Corp.
1050 17th Street, Suite 950
Denver, CO 80265
USA
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.denisonmines.com
Re: July 11, 2011 DRC letter and September 27, 2010 SRC email regarding equipment at Egnar Cutoff
Road
Dear Mr. Lundberg:
This letter responds to the Utah Division of Radiation Control's ("DRC's") July 11, 2011 letter regarding
equipment stored in a field on the north side of Egnar Cutoff Road. The July 11 letter refers to an earlier
email from Ryan Johnson ofthe DRC to David Turk of Denison Mines (USA) Corp.'s ("Denison's) White Mesa
Mill regarding the same equipment. DRC's questions (in italics) and Denison's responses, are provided
below.
1. Where does the equipment come from? (i.e. White Mesa Mill, Mining operations).
The equipment which was the subject of DRC's email and letter is from the La Sal Mine, not the White Mesa
Mill. The equipment in question was removed from the La Sal Mine site to the off-site lay-down area at the
Egnar Cutoff Road as a result of an equipment inventory that was performed in 2010.
Pieces determined at that time to be necessary for future use, or for parts, were kept on site at the mine. The
remaining pieces were moved to the off-site lay-down area for storage, and are being evaluated for future
sale or disposal.
2. If the equipment is from the White Mesa Mill, can the licensee provide radiological sun/eys of the
equipment?
As explained in our response to Item 1, above, the equipment is not from the White Mesa Mill.
3. Is there a potential that this equipment is radiologically contaminated?
While there is no requirement for pre-release scanning applicable to this equipment, and no limitation as to its
off-site storage or reuse, the equipment was scanned at the mine site prior to its transfer to the Egnar Cutoff
Road lay-down area. Further, as stated in DRC's email of September 27, 2010, "the fenceline dose rate was
at background." Therefore the equipment poses no radiological hazard to any member of the public outside
the perimeter of the lay-down yard.
We apologize for not responding directly to your email of September 27, 2010; however, that email neither
requested any response nor required any specific action. Nonetheless, Denison did take actions in response
to the email, as follows. Denison responded to DRC's recommendation to improve security by installing a
security fence around the property in December 2010. Photos of the construction of the fence are provided in
Attachment 1 to this letter. In response to the recommendation to move the equipment out of public sight.
N:\Mine Compliance\La Sal Mines\La Sal Equipment at UColo\07.19 11 response to 07.11.11 DRC Itr mine
eqpt.doc
Letter to Mr. Rusty Lundberg
July 20, 2011
Page 2
Denison rearranged the equipment in the lay-down yard at that time in an attempt to minimize its visibility
from the road. However, due to the open flatness of the lay-down yard and surroundings, it was not possible
to move the equipment completely out of public sight.
Please contact me if you have any further questions.
Yours very truly,
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
^J^^^^J(l'C^'^.^'^Ay•—^
Jo Ann Tischler
Director, Compliance and Permitting
cc: Philip Buck
David C. Frydenlund
Ryan Johnson
Harold R. Roberts
Attachments
DENiSONOi
MINES
Letter to Mr. Rusty Lundberg
July 20, 2011
Page 3
ATTACHMENT 1
DENISON
MINES
Security Fence under Construction, December 2010
Security Fence under Construction, December 2010
2010 12 20
Completed Security Fence, December 2010