GENERAL30538 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DMO exemptions are available only by an application to the Board that demonstrates that the DMO does not use, store, or disturb toxic-producing materials "in quantities sufficient to adversely affect any persou, any property, or the environment " C.R.S. § 34-32-112.5(2), HRMM Rule 7.2.6(2)(emphases added). Here, the operator has not met its burden to demonstrate, as the statute requires, that the quantity oftoxic-producing materials stored and disturbed at any of the sites are of such insignificant quantities that there could be no adverse effects to "any person, any property, or the envvonment: ' Id. Notably, the standard for triggering DMO status is a much lower standard than whether the mines will violate state water quality standards, as an adverse impact inevitably occurs prior to violations of those standards. Equating the test for violation of state water quality standards with the DMO status threshold inappropriately heightens the DMO standard and is contrary to state law and DMG regulations. Such an approach also discounts the impacts to persons, property, and the environment in the immediate vicinity of the contaminating mine facilities. State groundwater standazds are of no consequence to the DMO inquiries. Violations of state groundwater standards by the types of contaminants found at these mining operations aze very serious matters. However, whether violations are occurring or likely to occur is not the standard under which to review DMO status. Here, DMO status was properly determined at the mine site itself by answering in the affirmative that regulated materials aze exposed or disturbed. C.R.S. § 34-32-103(3.5). Likewise, a DMO exception may be granted only after an application demonstrates the quantities of the materials "used, store, or disturbed" will not "adversely effect any person, any property, or the environment " C.R.S. § 34-32-112.5(emphasis added). The Cotter "appeal" based on groundwater modeling and assertions that it will not violate groundwater standards support neither anon-designation determination nor an exemption for these four mines. Overall, there is no basis found in the record to reverse or grant an exemption from the DMO findings. Therefore, to the extent an exemption may have been sought by the appeal or is being sought from the DMG or MLR Board, the request for an exemption must be denied and the DMG should begin the process of ensuring that these four uranium mines comply with regulations applicable to DMOs, including submission of Environmental Protection Plans. HRMM Rule 7.1.3(2). Cotter's Irrelevant Groundwater Modeling is Flawed Even assuming arguendo that the groundwater modeling is relevant (which the modeling is not) to broad standards set forth above and followed by DMG in making the DMO determinations, the August 25, 2005 appeal relies on insufficient modeling of a different site. Cotter asks DMG and the Board to reverse its DMO findings based on a groundwater model of a similar site. However, as correctly documented by the DMG in the December 2, 2005 internal memo from Russell Means to Harry Posey and Kate Pickford, the model results were presented to DMG without underlying data and description of the model parameters. The December 2, 2005 memo raises additional important questions as to how a contaminant plume would spread in accordance with the "variable transmissivities" and actual subsurface