Laserfiche WebLink
3. Even using the unrealistic assumption of no sorption, the leading edge of the <br />plume as defined by a concentration of 1 millionth of the initial concentration fails to <br />reach the groundwater; <br />4. Under realistic conditions, the rock units underlying all of the mine waste piles <br />would exhibit significant sorption characteristics that would retard the movement of <br />species of concern. As noted in the response to comments, the Morrison Formation <br />behaves as a geochemical trap that resulted in a Uravan Mineral Belt; <br />5. Laboratory tests on the permeability of the Summerville Fonnation yielded a <br />hydraulic conductivity value of less than 9.7 E-] 0 cm/s effectively creating an aquiclude <br />that would prevent downward migration of water to potential aquifers below the <br />Summerville. For comparison purposes, concrete has a hydraulic conductivity of 1 E-8 <br />cm/s. <br />In conclusion, the GeoSciences' report states: <br />Conservative based modeling that incorporated no sorption and relatively high <br />permeability values results in plumes that failed to reach the underlying groundwater. <br />Under unrealistic conditions using published values of sorption and permeability such as <br />laboratory tests for the Summerville Formation, then there is no viable pathway for <br />species of concern from the mining waste piles to reach regional groundwater resources. <br />2. An exemption is permissible whether the operations are undertaken pursuant to section <br />34-32-110 "or otherwise." <br />The Appellant, in another misstatement, asserts at section 3 of its Brief that the Boazd <br />may not provide an exemption to Cotter for the SM-18 Mine. At page 12 of its Brief, the <br />Appellant incorrectly states, "[B]ecause the SM-18 Mine is a 112 operation, HRMM Rules <br />1.1(14) and 7.2.4 do not provide for any exemption from DMO status." Again, this is simply <br />wrong. <br />The Appellant has conveniently left out any reference to the provision of the Act which <br />controls the situation here. Specifically, the Appellant fails to quote the last phrase contained at <br />section 34-32-112.5(2) of the Act: <br />If an operator demonstrates to the Boazd at the time of applying for a permit or at a <br />subsequent hearing that acid- or toxic- producing materials will not be used, stored, or <br />disturbed in quantities sufficient to adversely affect any person, any property or the <br />9 <br />