Laserfiche WebLink
• The non-DMO determination was based solely on an analysis of the likelihood of <br />groundwater violations. Exh. 1 (Mazch 2006 non-DMO determination). <br />• Cotter has not submitted and the DRMS has not reviewed any information related to the <br />quantities of uranium sulfate or effects of uranium sulfate that will be generated at the <br />SM-18 Mine. DRMS Response at 3. <br />• Cotter has not submitted and the DRMS has not reviewed any information related to <br />quantities of radium or threats posed by radium as it exists in the SM-18 Mine ore body <br />nor as it may exist in the ore and protore that has been removed from the mine. DRMS <br />Response at 3. <br />• Cotter has not submitted and the Division has not reviewed any information related to <br />quantities of radon or threats posed by air exposure to radon in and near the SM-18 - an <br />underground uranium mine. DRMS Response at 2. <br />• The SM-18 is a federal uranium mine, and as such, mandatory compliance with the DMO <br />requirements is consistent with the state/federal regulatory scheme. DRMS Response at 2. <br />• The SM-18 has operated this federal uranium mine without an EPP in 2005, and unless <br />ordered by this Board, plans to reopen the mine without first preparing an EPP. <br />• There is no dispute that uranium sulfate, radium, and radon associated with the federal <br />uranium mining program has adversely affected persons, properties and environment in <br />Western Colorado. See Appellants Opening Brief at 3. <br />Cotter and DRMS continue to misconstrue the plain language of the MLRA by erroneously <br />azguing that an imminent violation of a water quality standard must be proven in order for a mine <br />to qualify as a DMO. If Cotter and DRMS were correct, such a finding of a violation of a water <br />quality standazd would necessitate the denial of the mine permit altogether. Certainly, the 1993 <br />MLRA amendments do not equate DMO status with a finding of a violation of a water quality <br />standazd. Rather, the protections to the public health and environment embodied in a finding of <br />DMO status apply long before violations of water quality standards are imminent. Otherwise, <br />DMO status would provide no additional protection. <br />Based on these undisputed facts and a plain reading of the MLRA that gives meaning to the <br />DMO provisions, the July 2005 DMO Determination must be reinstated. <br />Despite these well-known adverse effects posed by underground uranium mining, Cotter and the <br />Division have both suggested that the Board may make a determination that toxic or acidic <br />materials not are disturbed at the SM-18 - an underground uranium mine - in "quantities <br />sufficient to adversely affect any person, any property, or the environment...." C.R.S. § 34-32- <br />112.5(2). To the extent that Cotter now seeks a DMO exemption directly from the Board, any <br />such request must be rejected as contrary to the undisputed facts concerning the adverse effects <br />of uranium mining. See Appellants' Opening Brief at 5-8. <br />2 <br />