Laserfiche WebLink
Regarding Financial Responsibility: The Surety Bond has been set as part of the Mill License. The current <br />Surety has been determined by the dollar amount required to attain cleanup standards that have been <br />set by the Remedial Action Plan, etc. Should the operator become insolvent or abandon the job, the <br />Bond is designed to pay for attainment of those standards, as well as site transfer to DOE. DRMS should <br />follow the same guidelines at Schwartzwalder. <br />As an aside, our CAG has been told that Cotter, as Potentially Responsible Party, will ultimately be <br />responsible for the Sites, should the subsequent owner or operator fail to perform. Further, we have <br />been told that CDPME Legal Counsel has determined that General Atomics, as parent of Cotter, will be <br />responsible, should Cotter be unable to do so in the future. In other words, I expect that Cotter/GA. as <br />PRP, will retain ultimate responsibility for the sites. I would like to see a concurrence from DRMS Legal <br />Counsel before I am comfortable here. <br />This responsibility issue should not affect Surety or Conditions, because, if it becomes necessary to draw <br />on GA's resources, it is likely that there will be lengthy legal challenge, delaying the Cleanup the <br />Community deserves. Therefore, it is mandatory that the Surety be set according to the required tasks <br />and milestones, not the potential "deep (or shallow) pockets" of the Owner. With an appropriate Surety <br />established and in place, the financial concerns of Denver and Arvada Water, as well as our CAG, are <br />addressed. <br />It is important for the Public to note that the Agencies cannot legally impose conditions or financial <br />requirements for activities or cleanup goals that have not yet been established through appropriate <br />mechanisms (i.e. not arbitrary). This does not preclude additional future requirements (activities or <br />Surety) from being imposed, if remediation becomes more extensive than current plans. But legal <br />requirements must be satisfied for any changes. Then, increased financial requirements can be imposed. <br />Summary: <br />1. Standard Agency Procedures will address the concerns of Denver and Arvada Water, and our <br />CAG. <br />2. Surety amount should be Site -Specific, not Operator Specific. <br />3. Any delay in proceeding with the RI/FS (or site mitigation at Schwartzwalder) will be harmful to <br />the Communities, preferably performed by the same (not successive) entities. <br />4. CLL and its predecessors have a track record that can be evaluated. <br />I recommend that transfer of ownership be approved, once these standards are met, <br />Mike Stiehl <br />1240 Logan St, <br />Canon City CO 81212 <br />719-429-7300 <br />I request that this correspondence be placed on the associated Federal and State websites. <br />Page 2 of 2 <br />