Laserfiche WebLink
The appellant refers to Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials or <br />"TENORM", published by the EPA. TENORM issues are not within the jurisdiction of the Division's <br />reclamation permit requirements, DOE may address them as the federal oversight agency. Even though <br />TENORM is non-jurisdictional it is important for DRMS to point out that several of the measures noted <br />and sited by the appellant are either non-applicable or in practice. <br />1) There are no mine waters at this site so issues of mixing quality waters with bad do not exist. <br />Water isolation measures, fracture and fissure mitigation and water circulation are non- <br />applicable. <br />2) Flooding of mine workings in a dry mine is not possible, <br />3) Capping ofwaste dumps and ore storage pads is part of the approved Reclamation Plans. <br />4) pH has not been identified as a problem that requires additional mitigation measures based on <br />]ow precipitation and capping. <br />5) Adding bacterial growth to waste piles is not an acceptable reclamation practice in this area due <br />to low precipitation which causes bacteria] mortality. <br />6) Four of the listed nine chemicals that can create U02SO4 are metal recovery processes not found <br />at uranium mines in this district. <br />7) All shafts, boreholes and access routes aze addressed within the approved reclamation plans. <br />8) With no water present water circulation measures are not applicable. <br />Surface water impact mitigation currently approved includes several of TENORM recommendations. <br />1) Storm run-on is channeled through engineered paths to prevent infiltration of ore and waste <br />stockpiles. <br />2} Capping of the waste rock prevents moisture intrusion that can release toxins if present. <br />3) Waste rock piles are located out of drainages to prevent additional water infiltration. <br />In conclusion in the appellant's brief it is stated that "the very broadly and without reference to <br />mitigating measures" stance of the Act must be used to determine DMO status. This argument fails to <br />recognize the exemption appeal process described in Rule 7.2.6. Further, the argument for overturning <br />the Non-DMO Status notes the narrow use of water quality standards to the exclusion of others. Based <br />on the fact that DMO standards are not quantitative, the Division utilizes provisions of Rule 3.1.6 and <br />3.1.7 as policy. These Rules are located within the reclamation standards section of the rules. They <br />specifically note state wide groundwater standards established by the Water Quality Control Division of <br />CDPHE for classified and unclassified waters as the measure for the Division in evaluating site impacts. <br />No other standazds are cited and therefore considered. The appellant would have the Division applying <br />non-jurisdictional federal and state standazds in its consideration of DMO status for any site which it <br />cannot do. <br />