GENERAL30538 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

geology in the two study areas. DMG properly questions Cotter's attempt to apply PORFLOW, highly modulaz modeling software with a wide range of applications to model fluid and energy flows, to geological conditions at a different site. There is no indication of what modules were used in the submitted study. Further, current versions of PORFLOW allow three-dimensional modeling. However, Cotter chose, without explanation, to use a two-dimensional model of a vertical slice from the SM-18 mine, A simple vertical examination from a different site is not an appropriate model for groundwater dispersion where athree-dimensional model is available to examine the horizontal groundwater flows that were somehow "assumed" into the two dimensional model. The simultaneous horizontal and vertical flows of grcundwater in the complex and varied geology of the actual sites necessitate the use of the available three-dimensional modeling and full documentation in the project file of the model modules, pazameters, and input data. Absent such techniques, Cotter's analysis does not represent an appropriately conservative scientific approach to determining the impact of its toxic groundwater pollution. Further, the model must be run on data from the actual site in order to provide the most useful results. And finally, although the modeling might be of use in ensuring that these mines meet other regulatory standards, the entire discussion of groundwater modeline is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the DMG's DMO-determination should be reversed by the Board. The Public has A Right to Participate in DMO FSndings and Appeals The Mine Land Reclamation Act's ("MLRA") public participation requirements aze quite inclusive. "Any person has the right to file written objections to or statements in support of an application for a permit with the board." C.R.S. § 34-32-114. Consistent with the MLRA, the HRMM Rule 7.2.2 allows any person to appeal anon-DMO status determination. While anon- DMO appeai is unnecessary because anon-DMO finding has not been made, please consider this letter a written objection of Cotter's August 26, 2005 appeal and application for non-DMO status for the JD-6, JD-8, JD-9 and SM-18 Mines. Also consistent with the MLRA, HRMM Rule 7.2.6 requires an operator seeking a DMO exemption to request a heazing or file an application to gain an exemption. Although Cotter's August 25, 2005 one page appeal is vague and does not explicitly request an exemption, the appeal and letters subsequently exchanged seem to indicate that Cotter is seeking a DMO exemption. Please consider this letter as written opposition to the consideration or application for a DMO exemption for the JD-6, JD-8, JD-9 and SM-18 Mines. Since the process far involving the public in the current Cotter DMO appeal/request for exemption is not entirely clear and may fall under two sets of regulations, we look forwazd to working cooperatively to ensure a full, fair public process is used to review Cotter's request to gain either non-DMO or DMO-exempt status. Please feel free to call if you would like to discuss/clarify the regulatory process that the Board plans to use to review Cotter's appeal/application for DMO exemption. Colorado Environmental Coalition, INFORM and San Juan Citizens Alliance have a significant interest in participating in DMG processes that ensure that these mining operations, and al] mining in Colorado, aze properly regulated under the MLRA. 4