GENERAL33904 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Although the DRMS attempts to minimize an inspection report dated May 12, 2005 that indicates that numerous problems exist at the SM-18 uranium mine including, "oil spills, leaking pipes, deteriorating liners, lack of berms around stockpile areas and tracking of ore fines out of the stockpile areas...", there is no dispute regarding other inspections and reports that identify actual problems and potential adverse effects at the SM-18. There s no dispute that a DRMS report and analysis dated April 5, 2005 indicates that "contamination build up of surface materials from prolonged use of an area maybe an issue of concern." See also DRMS Report dated April 5, 2006 ("erosion control measures and fuel tank security are noted as issues of concern for future monitoring.") Although DRMS takes issue with the current and ongoing size of uranium ore stockpiles, there is no dispute that the October 5, 2005, DRMS report documented a 50 ton uranium ore stockpile "located adjacent to the county maintained road." There is no dispute that whatever the size and duration of the future uranium ore stockpiles, they will continue to be located adjacent to a county road. Further, there is no question that Cotter and DOE have been engaged in an effort to remove uranium ore that remains "stockpiled" on its 28 lease tracts in Western Colorado, despite the fact that no significant production has occurred on these leases for over 20 years. In sum, SM-18 is an old underground uranium mine which has and will stockpile uranium ore adjacent to a county road, which has operated sporadically for several decades, has been restarted and operated for a short time in 2005, and has significant problems that are identified in public records. Although mining operations at the mine have again ceased, DOE and Cotter appear to have made some arrangements that would allow mining activities to resume. The Board has the power to ensure that these mining activities do not resume until such time as all state laws and regulations, including those applying to DMO operations, are fully complied with. IV. ADDITIONAL TOXICITY FACTORS, ACID-FORMING PROPERTIES, AND PROTECTIVE MEASURES ASSOCIATED WITH URANIUM MINING WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY DRMS IN ISSUING ITS NON-DMO DETERMINATION Neither the Division nor Cotter dispute that uranium mining adds a level of toxicity and acid forming potential that is not found at other mining operations. Neither also dispute that uranium mines pose unique factors which are summarized in the federal Environmental Protection Agency's January 2006 report on uranium mining impacts. Opening Brief at Exhibits 5 & 6. Neither Cotter nor DRMS point to any analysis of these issues in the DRMS reports that were prepared in support of its reversal of the July 2005 DMO determination. Based on these concessions alone, the continued debate over DMO status should now be put to rest and these issues should be fully addressed in an Environmental Protection Plan that is required by the DMO provisions that were adopted as amendments to the MLRA in 1993. DRMS and Cotter appear to base their entire analysis of whether the SM-18 Mine is a DMO on the potential adverse impacts to groundwater alone. As discussed below, this analysis lacks necessary information to exempt SM-18 as a DMO. In any case, the DRMS and Cotter failed to 4