GENERAL56329 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

On August 25, 2005 Cotter Corporation filed aone-page letter described as an "appeal" of the July 25, 2005 DMO determinations. The DMO appeal was based entirely on groundwater hydrology models that had not yet been designed or conducted. In later correspondence to DMG from Peter Kearl (a Cotter Contractor) dated November 28, 2005, Cotter argued that based on its modeling, toxic contaminants at the four mines "pose no significant threat to underlying groundwater resources." However, there is no indication in the study, the file, or relevant DMO standards as to what constitutes a "significant threat "Regardless, the groundwater models and the "significant threat" assertions, are irrelevant to an appeal of a DMO determination or an application for an exception to the DMO status. Regardless, the data and conclusions presented by Cotter do not constitute reliable and conservative studies upon which the DMG can base a decision to treat the subject mines asnon- DMO or DMO-exempt facilities. The December 2, 2005 internal DMG memo from Russell Means to Harry Posey and Kate Pickford correctly points out that the model results were presented to DMG without underlying data and description of the model parameters. The file also contains letters indicating that a Board consideration of the Cotter appeal has been delayed several times in order that the DMG staff can consider the various Cotter submissions. Although it is crucial for the DMG to be fully informed of the groundwater impacts, these types of considerations are properly done in context of reviewing EPPs and other requirements of DMO regulatory program. It would be in the interest of efficient use of DMG resources to direct staff to suspend its review of Cotter's model and to begin taking those measures appropriate for newly determined DMOs. Cotter Corporation Has Not Demonstrated non-DMO or DMO-Ezempt Status The Mined Land Reclamation Act ("MLRA") defines DMO. "Designated mining operation" means a mining operation at which: (I) Toxic or acidic chemicals used in extractive metallurgical processing are present on-site; or (II) Acid- ortoxic-forming materials will be exposed or disturbed as a result of mining operations. C.R.S. § 34-32-103(3.5) (a). Here, there is no question that toxic-forming materials have been and will be exposed and disturbed at the four mining operations as a result of past mining, current conditions, and planned mining operations. The July 25, 2005 Notice of Determination clearly states that the mines meet the criteria for a DMO. Id. (acid- or toxic-forming materials exposed or disturbed). Cotter does not contest that the DMG's tests revealed waste rock on these sites that aze acid- and toxic forming nor does Cotter allege that such material will not be exposed or disturbed. Instead, Cotter apparently pursues a strategy that uses modeling tc argue that the toxicity of contaminant plumes from the sites may meet "certain applicable water quality parameters" if sufficiently diluted before reaching ground and surface water bodies. However, the pollution dilution strategy provides no basis for anon-DMO finding.