2010-06-21_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300

Home Browse Search

Cheryl Linden, Esq. June 21, 2010 Page 8 also explain that installing equipment for dewatering is technically challenging to accomplish safely. Moreover, it will explain that dewatering would pose substantial physical feasibility challenges in installing a pump, pipe and other equipment in the mine. The rationale will further include analytical results of Ralston Creek showing uranium levels very close to the recently-promulgated 30 ug/L standard (which basically lowered the standard by 50 percent). C. Statements by DRMS Do Not Support Mine Dewaterint and Treatment. Corrective Action #2 requires expensive mine dewatering and treatment when DRMS itself has equivocated regarding whether the underground mine pool is a contributing factor to increased uranium levels in the receiving stream. See May 18, 2010 Inspection Report at 2 ("The underground mine pool might also be a contributing factor.) (Emphasis added). The DRMS' May 19, 2010 letter, which is Adequacy Review #2 of the EPP, also does not assert that the underground mine pool is contributing to contamination of Ralston Creek. See p.I ("The underground mine pool may also be a contributing factor.") (Emphasis added). Instead, DRMS asks for further evaluation of whether the mine pool may be a contributor, and this evaluation from Cotter is not due until August 1, 2010..5ee p. 3 ("Please provide an evaluation of possible seepage of the mine pool to the alluvium"); ("This issue [that the mine pool is not contributing loading to Ralston Creek] requires further analysis to more thoroughly assess any connection between the mine pool, the regional ground water gradient and possible hydraulic communication along the Schwartz trend"); ("Please provide a more complete characterization of the acid- generating materials, including the possible scenario that, with the workings in a flooded condition, the acid-generating materials are exposed in an unsaturated condition and perhaps preferentially weathered and may be contributing a larger share of loading to the mine pool than in an unflooded condition) (emphasis added). Requiring expensive dewatering and treatment that may worsen water quality in the mine and is technically challenging to accomplish safely, when DRMS is requesting an evaluation of whether the mine pool is even contributing to contamination of Ralston Creek, is not justified. It is also contrary to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 34-32-102(2), requiring that the economic costs #1478373 0 den