2010-07-02_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300 ‎(2)‎

• Permit No: M1977300
• IBM Index Class Name: ENFORCEMENT
• Doc Date: 7/2/2010
• Doc Name: Response to Cotter Corporation's June 21, 2010 Submittal.
• From: DRMS
• To: Cotter
• Email Name: DB2
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

mine pool as specified above in order to properly address the violations at Cotter's
mine site.
ARGUMENT
In its submittal, Cotter alleges, among other things, that the Division does not
identify the facts alleged to constitute the violations. See e.g. Cotter Response, p. 2.
To properly respond to Cotter's allegation, background information is necessary.
On May 21, 2010, the Division issued a Notice of Reason to Believe a
Violation Exists Letter ("RTB") to Cotter regarding the Schwartzwalder Mine. In the
RTB, the Division states that as a result of its inspection of the Schwartzwalder Mine
on May 18, 2010 and in conjunction with its review of Cotter's April 2010 proposed
Environmental Protection Plan ("EPP" or "Whetstone Report") it believes violations
exist at the site. The Division attached its Inspection Report of May 18, 2010 to the
RTB.
The Inspection Report sets forth the Division's observations, potential
violations at the site and corrective actions. The corrective actions require Cotter to
submit a technical revision by June 1, 2010 to include plans and implementation
schedules that (a) reinitiate a water treatment system to treat all water to Sump No. 1
as soon as possible but not later than July 31, 2010 and (2) reinitiate mine dewatering
and water discharge treatment sufficient to bring the mine water table (mine pool) to
at least 500 feet below the Steve adit and sufficient to reestablish a hydraulic gradient
away from Ralston Creek. The corrective actions mandated that implementation
occur as soon as possible but no later than July 31, 2010. The Inspection Report also
requires as a corrective action that Cotter submit an amendment application by
August 1, 2010 to address unresolved EPP details described in the Division's May 19,
2010 Adequacy Review letter.
Also in the RTB, the Division states, among other things, that elevated levels
of uranium are present in the mine pool, the alluvial area adjacent to Ralston Creek
and in Ralston Creek. The Division asserts violations of §§ 34-32-116(7)(c), (7)(g),
(7)(h) and (7)(i) and Rules 3.1.6 and 3.1.7.
As stated above, in its June 21, 2010 response to the Division's RTB, Cotter
alleges that the Division does not identify the facts alleged to constitute the violations.
See e.g., Cotter Response, p. 2. However, Cotter in its response cites to the Division's
RTB, the Division's Inspection Report, hydrology reports, the Division's adequacy
responses to Cotter's Technical Revision, and Cotter's proposed Environmental
Protection Plan. Despite its argument to the contrary, Cotter has sufficient knowledge
of the facts underlying the RTB.