2010-02-17_REVISION - M1980055HR

• Permit No: M1980055HR
• IBM Index Class Name: REVISION
• Doc Date: 2/17/2010
• Doc Name: EPP, Adequacy Response
• From: DRMS
• To: Denison Mines ‎(USA)‎ Corp.
• Type & Sequence: AM1
• Email Name: RCO
• Email Name: SSS
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF RECLAMATION, MINING AND SAFETY
Department of Natural Resources L
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203 C O L O R A D O
Phone: [phone] D 1 V I 5 I O N O F
RECLAMATION
FAX: [phone] E® MINING
FEB io?o j SAFETY
Division of Reciamatfor?, Bill Ritter, Jr.
February 17, 2010 Mining & Safety Governor
Harris D. Sherman
Christy Woodward Executive Director
Denison Mines (USA) Corp. Ronald W. Cattany
1050 17'r Street -Suite 950 Division Director
Denver, CO 80265 Natural Resource Trustee
Re: Environmental Protection Plans, Adequacy Responses to DMO Amendment Materials, for Permit 'Numbers:
M-1977-285, Sunday Mine, Amendment AM-3; M-1977416, Carnation Mine, Amendment AM-1;
M-1978-039 HR, St. Jude Mine, Amendment AM-1; M-1980-055 HR, Topaz Mine, Amendment AM-1;
M-1981-021, West Sunday Mine, Amendment AM-1.
Dear Ms. Woodward,
The Division has completed its review of the most recent adequacy submittals, pertaining to the EPPs that are being
finalized for the permits for the Sunday group of mines (all five permits and amendments identified above). The
submitted materials were received at the Division's Durango office on January 4, 2010, which was before the decision
date. The complexity of the materials, however, required additional review time by Division staff, beyond the decision
date. The submittal is nevertheless considered timely and the Division will proceed toward decisions on the
amendments.
The five permits are each being amended presently to include their respective EPP. Your submitted EPP materials
were combined into one set of documents, though each permitted area is treated individually when appropriate.
Similarly, this response letter will include comments for the combined permits and separate comments for individual
permits, as appropriate.
The following paragraphs contain comments by the Division, for all issues and recent responses provided by Denison
that the Division still considers to be inadequate. (The Division's comments, below, are not necessarily arranged in
the same order as in previous correspondence.) All topics considered to be adequately addressed at this time are not
discussed further herein.
Please see the attached memo from the DRMS geochemist for discussion and comments regarding Uranium as a toxic-
forming material, Water quality monitoring plan, and Addendum to the hydrologic evaluation. You may respond
directly to me regarding those questions.
If Denison's responses to the questions concerning the water quality monitoring plan in the attached memo are
reviewed and found adequate, a written approval from DRMS will be issued.
Ore pad liner.
Justification: As shown by UNSAT-H modeling, the potential for percolation of water to groundwater resources from
the waste rock and ore stockpiles does exist though it the model indicates that it may be minimal. As such, the
requirement for lined ore pads is justified.
Office of Office of
Mined Land Reclamation Denver • Grand Junction • Durango Active and Inactive Mines