Laserfiche WebLink
• Limit groundwater circulation in mines by reducing permeability and hydraulic <br />isolation. <br />• Seal shafts, boreholes, and other access routes. <br />• Seal fracture and fissure zones. <br />• Dam up individual parts of the mine to prevent circulation. <br />• Use chemically active backfills to create reactive barriers that reduce <br />contaminant migration. <br />Surface Impoundments of Mine Waste Materials <br />• Divert surface water by developing channels. <br />• Cap impoundments to limit infiltration of atmospheric precipitation. <br />• Place waste materials selectively to facilitate containment. <br />• lnstall reactive inter-layers (crushed limestone) to control pH. <br />• Encourage the development of anoxic conditions by adding bacterial growth <br />media, such as manure or wood chips. <br />Exh. 6 (EPA TENORM Report) at 4-11 - 4-12. As set forth below, the unique features of <br />uranium mining and the requirements of the MLRA mandate that the development, <br />consideration, and approval of the EPP as the proper place to analyze and adopt the unique <br />measures needed to address the acid-forming and toxic materials involved with the SM-18 <br />underground uranium mine. <br />V. ARGUMENT <br />Here, because the record in this case unequivocally establishes that "acid or toxic-forming <br />materials" are undoubtedly present, the Division committed legal error in determining that the <br />SM-18, a 112 Operation, did not meet the definition of a DMO. The Board may remedy the error <br />by reinstating the July 25, 2005, DMO determination and confirming that Cotter has not met its <br />substantial burden of proof in seeking an exemption from the DMO provisions. <br />A. The MLRA Requires Reinstatement of the July 2005 Determination of DMO <br />Status <br />1. The SM-18 Uranium Mine is a DMO as a Matter of Law <br />This appeal involves important questions of statutory interpretation. As stated by the Colorado <br />Court of Appeals, "[e]ven if pure questions of law aze concerned, agency review of the <br />challenged action is desirable in order to provide the court with the benefit of the agency's <br />considered interpretation of its enabling statute." Kendal v. Cason, 791 P.2d 1227, ] 229 (Colo. <br />Ct. App. 1990). <br />As a matter of law, the SM-18 mine is a designated mining operation. The Mined Land <br />Reclamation Act ("MLRA") unambiguously defines a DMO very broadly and without reference <br />to mitigation measures that may be taken to address the toxicity of the relevant materials. <br />"Designated mining operation" means a mining operation at which: <br />