ENFORCE31823 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Reinstating the July 25, 2005 DMO Determination is consistent with the statute, regulations, and the MLRB's own statements in the Statement of Basis Specific Statutory Authority and Purpose for the regulations adopted to implement Senate Bi1193-247 where the legislature created DMO status. For instance, the Statement recognizes that DMO status is proper where an "operation has the potential to create or aggravate acidic or toxic drainages from naturally occurring geologic materials mined or disturbed in their operation ... because there are. contaminant mobility pathways available (such as ground or surface waters) that could lead to adverse impacts to htunan health, property or the environment." Statement at 31 (referencing HRMM Rule 7)(emphasis added). Again, the test for a DMO is only whether the operation has exposed or disturbed toxic materials that could adversely affect human health, property, or the environment. The DMO determination is a much broader and lower threshold than the narrow and elevated standazd used in the Mazch 6 review and March 9 non-DMO determination that was based on whether proof exists that the ground or surface water quality standards will be violated. The March, 2006 reversal does not contravene or even question the sound basis of the original finding -that the ore on site contains toxic-forming materials. Instead, as set forth more fully above, the new finding was based solely on groundwater modeling of carbonates and ignores the serious questions of the uranium sulfites. Cotter's flawed models seek only to show that surface contaminants will not reach surface water bodies or groundwater in quantities sufficient to violate surface or groundwater quality standards. As demonstrated, however, the proper test is whether the toxic-forming materials could have an adverse impact, not whether they will violate water quality standazds. In addition, no analysis has been provided regazding DMO status being triggered by the hydrological impacts of dewatering the ore bearirig layer. Also, the mine file indicates the presence of intermittent streams and surface water expressions located at the site which require erosion and flow control for these same toxic-producing materials. There is no analysis in the file regarding such important matters as radiological and other hazazds posed by the uranium ore whether exposure occurs on site or off site. At a minimum, in order to qualify as exempt from DMO status, the Boazd and Office must assess the potential for adverse impacts resulting from these aspects of the SM-1 S Mine. In sum, the DRMS improperly granted anon-DMO finding under the exemption standards where DRMS should have instead upheld the DMO determination and required the operator to file an application for DMO exemption for formal review and consideration by the MLRB, the interested public, and the federal agencies with responsibility for these federal public lands. As a practical matter, the present case involves a situation where the Division had correctly identified that the SM-18 Mine involves the toxic and acid-forming materials that trigger a DMO determination, but after persistent lobbying from Cotter and its contractors, the Division mistakenly granted a DMO exemption. The Division's July 2005 factual determination