ENFORCE31823 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Division in the Mazch 2006 non-DMO determination would render the DMO provisions. superfluous by equating them with the threshold issue of permit issuance and permit compliance. In any case, read in context of the EPA's TENORM documents and the demonstrated harms presented by underground uranium mining and the creation of uranium sulfate when ore piles are exposed to rainwater, the record unambiguously demonstrates that the SM-18 mine disturbs acid or toxic materials in "quantities sufficient" to cause an adverse impact to health and the environment. Indeed, the entire analysis conducted by the Division and Cotter ignores onsite impacts and relates only to whether the toxicity of the disturbed and leached materials is sufficiently attenuated in the groundwater at a monitoring point at the edge of the mining property. This entire attenuation analysis presumes "quantities sufficient" to have an adverse impact on the mine site -mandating DMO status even under the erroneous standards used by the Division. Further, the notice in the April 12, 2006 meeting agenda indicates that the DRMS's final non- DMO determination was based on staff's "acceptance" of groundwater models, unspecified reports, and other assertions made by Cotter. Staff accepts that contaminants fmm the waste rock or underground workings will not have a deleterious effect on the ground water quality in the immediate area. However, the DRMS appears to have adopted a position that contravenes the SPLP tests that. establish that SM-18 has the potential to release toxic or acidic materials. As chazacterized in the public notice in the April 12, 2006 meeting agenda: The initial finding was based on SPLP test results that showed that toxic-forming materials were present in the waste rock and ore that is being deposited at the surface of the operation. This notice, like the other records in the DRMS file, supports Appellants' request that the MLRB reject the final non-DMO finding as contrary to facts in the record and applicable law. Indeed, it appears that the DBMS is using an artificially heightened standard to review the DMO status. For example, [he DRMS repeatedly equates the definition of "acid or toxic producing materials" with "potential to release metals in concentrations that exceed ground or surface water standards" See July 25, 2005 Notice and June 15, 2005 SPLP results review. However, the MLRA specifically defines "acid or toxic producing materials" as "natural or reworked earth materials having acid or toxic chemical and physical characteristics." C.R.S. § 34-32-103(1). In this way, the DRMS's March 2006 non-DMO findings are based on the erroneous position that only where "acid or toxic producing materials" are present in such quantities that will violate surface or groundwater standards is a DMO status warranted. 10