GENERAL33904 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Board may remedy the error by reinstating the July 25, 2005, DMO determination and confirming that Cotter has not met its substantial burden of proof in seeking an exemption from the DMO provisions. V. THE BOARD LACKS SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO GRANT A DMO EMEMPTION IN THIS PROCEEDING Cotter has not met the formidable legal burden to demonstrate that the Boazd may lawfully grant an exemption from DMO status. As set forth in Appellants' Opening Brief, In order to obtain the exemption, the applicant for the exemption must demonstrate that the DMO does not use, store, or disturb toxic-producing materials "in quantities sufficient to adversely affect any person, any property, or the environment." Opening Brief at 9. In the present case, the documented exposure of uranium and heavy metals, and the toxicity of uranium and the deadly health impacts of uranium mines leaves no doubt that a Board-granted exemption is improper where an underground uranium mine with demonstrated disturbance of toxic materials such as SM-18 is involved. Regardless of whether or not the Board has discretion to provide an exemption for a 112 Operation as opposed to a 110 operation, Cotter has failed to carry its burden to demonstrate, with competent data, that the SM-18 meets each element required to establish eligibility for an exemption. As stated in the Opening Brief, with respect to groundwater contamination, the standazd for finding DMO status is much lower than the standard for granting a permit or finding that a violation of an applicable groundwater standard will not occur. Instead, DMO determinations and exemptions concerns the much lower standard of whether toxic or acidic materials are disturbed in "quantities sufficient to adversely affect any person, any property, or the environment...." C.R.S. § 34-32-112.5(2). Nevertheless, Cotter does not go beyond its narrow argument based on groundwater standards to address the quantities of ores anticipated at the SM-18 mine, let alone the numerous affects on persons, property and the environment that are identified in the EPA documents. The record unambiguously demonstrates that the SPLP test results uranium mining at the SM-18 mine "showed that toxic-forming materials were present in the waste rock and ore that is being deposited at the surface of the operation." Opening Brief at 10. Neither Cotter nor DRMS dispute this fact. Nowhere does Cotter address the "quantities" of these materials nor whether or not these undisclosed quantities are "sufficient to adversely affect any person, any property, or the environment." 34-32-112.5(2). Thus, the standards set out by Cotter and DRMS for obtaining an