GENERAL33904 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

address the other potential contaminate pathways, such as radon and other air emissions, which also trigger the DMO provisions of the MLRA. Indeed, the MLRB's own statements in the Statement of Basis Specific Statutory Authority and Purpose for the regulations adopted to implement Senate Bi1193-247, where the legislature created DMO status, demonstrate that while groundwater contamination is one contaminate pathway for the DRMS to consider, it is not the only pathway. For instance, the Statement recognizes that DMO status is proper where an "operation has the potential to create or aggravate acidic or toxic drainages from naturally occurring geologic materials mined or disturbed in their operation...because there are contaminant mobility pathways available (such as ground or surface waters) that could lead to adverse impacts to human health, property or the environment." Statement at 31 (referencing HRMM Rule 7). Thus, while ground and surface waters are important pathways to consider, there are but two. In order to qualify for a DMO exemption, all potential pathways must be considered, and the DMO- exemption test applied. The plain language of the MLRA requires consideration of all pathways, in broadly setting forth the test for DMO as whether the operation has exposed or disturbed toxic materials in "quantities sufficient to adversely affect any person, any property, or the environment...." C.R.S. § 34-32-112.5(2). As such, the DMO determination is a much broader one that whether proof exists that the ground or surface water quality will be adversely impacted, and certainly broader than simply whether water quality standards will be violated. Critical to this case, the DRMS and Cotter failed to assess other potential contaminant mobility pathways such as air radon emissions. The human health impacts and ongoing threats to the public and to miners Caused by radon at uranium mines is well established and undisputed. It is also undisputed that the DRMS' non-DMO determination did not address the fact that radon from the mine, ore, protore, and waste rock stockpiles at the SM-18 mine pose a significant health threat and must be addressed by ventilation and other mitigation measures. DRMS Response at 2. Yet, no consideration of the adverse effects of persons exposed to radon in and near the SM-18 uranium mine was contained in the Division's non-DMO determination. The unique acid mine drainage problems linked to uranium sulfate and radium at uranium mines was addressed by the DRMS for the first time through assumptions and inferences in its Response Brief, but lacked any basis in direct measurement or analysis. Response Brief at 3. The DRMS do not dispute that: Uranium and thorium, and radium to a lesser extent, can be mobilized by either acidic or alkaline solutions. Pyrite and other sulfur-bearing minerals are key determinanu as to whether acid mine drainage occurs. Opening Brief at 6 (citing EPA TENORM Report). There is no dispute that that sulfur is present in the ores and groundwater in the region. Id. The undisputed and unique toxic and acid-forming characteristics of uranium ore summarized by the Environmental Protection Agency bears repeating here: