ENFORCE31823 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(I) Toxic or acidic chemicals used in extractive metallurgical processing aze present on- site; or (II) Acid- ortoxic-forming materials will be exposed or disturbed as a result of mining operations. C.R.S. § 34-32-103(3.5)(a). Thus, the DMO threshold is the mere exposure of disturbance of any "acid or toxic-forming materials." Here, because the record in this case unequivocally establishes that "acid or toxic-forming materials" aze undoubtedly present, the Division committed legal error in its March 2006 determination that the SM-18 did not meet the definition of a DMO. Further, Cotter has simply not met its formidable legal burden to demonstrate an exemption from DMO status. Discussion of the standard for obtaining exempt status is informative. First, a DMO exists where "acid- ortoxic-forming materials will be exposed or disturbed." C.R.S. § 34- 32-103(3.5){a). In order to obtain the exemption, the applicant for the exemption must demonstrate that the DMO does not use, store, or disturb toxic-producing materials "in quantities sufficient to adversely affect any person, any property, or the environment." Id. Thus, Cotter has failed to carry its burden of demonstrating that the SM-18 meets each element required to establish eligibility for an exemption that, as shown below, only applies to a 110 Permit. In this case, the documented exposure of uranium and heavy metals, and the toxicity of uranium and the deadly health impacts of uranium mines leave no doubt that an exemption is improper where an underground uranium mine such as SM-18 is involved. 2. The Division Erroneously Equated DMO Standards and the EPP Requirements with Violations of Water Permitting Standards Cotter and the Division may not, as a legal matter, rely on an implicit argument that because the documented disturbance may not violate surface or ground water quality standards, that the DMO exemption applies. The Division's March 2006 determination that SM-18 is not a DMO was based solely on whether or not a violation of a groundwater permit is likely to occur. In contrast, the standazd for granting a DMO exemption is much broader and addresses whether toxic or acidic materials aze disturbed in "quantities sufficient to adversely affect any person, any property, or the environment...." 34-32-112.5(2). The Division based its March 2006 non-DMO determination on a finding that water quality standards will not be violated - a much narrower test and easier burden to satisfy than is required by the MLRA's DMO provisions. The low threshold used by the Division is contrary to the regulatory scheme set out in the MLRA that uses the DMO's EPP to address "adverse effects" independent of whether or not permit violations occur. Id. By any reasonable interpretation of the statutory and regulatory terms, an "adverse effect" to water quality surely occurs welt before water quality standards aze violated. If water quality standards were predicted to be violated, the Division would not approve the mine at all. Thus, the unlawfully narrow standard used by the 9