GENERAL35184 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Division's response to Cotter Corporation's Report and Previously Submitted Data: On April 17, 2006 Cotter formally appealed the DMO designation to the Board. Cotter proposed an extension of time to gather and submit additional ground water data to support its position that the site does not constitute a DMO. In December of 2006, Cotter installed a lysimeter and monitoring well at the JD-6 Mine. The location of the well was coordinated with DRMS staff to be adjacent to and down gradient from the existing waste dump. On June 15, 2007 Cotter submitted a report to the Division indicating no water or leachate had been recovered to date. The Division staff reviewed the additional submitted information in conjunction with previously submitted data and modeling. The review was conducted by David Bird, a DRMS Geo-Chemist: Kate Pickford, a DRMS hydrology specialist, and Russ Means, the DRMS uranium permit specialist for this site. Although Cotter reports that no water has yet shown up in the lysimeters, the data collection period of less than six months is insufficient to azgue that the lysimeters will never collect water. The Division is unable to adequately comment on how the lysimeters would respond to an abnormally high snow or rain season. Although probably a rarity in that area, staff must nonetheless consider the implications of high precipitation events. Cotter has provided insufficient data to determine the long-term effects of waste rock or ore stockpiling. High precipitation events will likely result in a wetting front that moves through the stockpile and dumps, and the potential for this event should be assessed through long-term sampling and monitoring. Cotter also failed to submit additional groundwater data as to depth and quality of underlying aquifers. The lack of such groundwater information is of primary concern in the submitted hydra-geology modeling conclusions. In conclusion, despite these concerns, staff opinion is that contamination generated from these stockpiles will migrate, albeit very slowly and only short distances from stockpiles, (assuming normal precipitation), and will be naturally attenuated in the soil and bedrock. The Division believes this migration amounts to a minimal threat of environmental contamination; however, noted faults and fracturing of the Paradox Valley Salt Dome exist and do not provide a sufficient barrier to unknown groundwater which exists at other sites. Moreover, the operator has not adequately demonstrated through monitoring, modeling, and other methods of characterization that migration of contaminates will not reach groundwater, and has not, in staff opinion, supplied sufficient factual data to overturn the DMO designation. Thus, under Rule 7.2.6 (]), Cotter has not demonstrated to the Division that no toxic or acid forming materials will be disturbed in quantities sufficient to adversely affect the human health, property or the environment. It is DRMS's recommendation that the Board uphold the determination that the JD-6 Mine has existing conditions that implicate Rule 7, (which implements Section 34-32-116.5, C.R.S. 1984 as amended), and that the JD-6 Mine should be characterized as a DMO. Should the Board uphold that DMO status is correct, Rule 7.2.3(2)(a) provides the permit holder 60 days to demonstrate that the elements of an Environmental Protection Plan aze already in place, and Rule 7.2.3(2)(b) affords the permit holder 180 days to submit a full plan for Division approval. G. Russ Means EPS II, Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety