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

Cotter also acknowledges that contaminants in the alluvium are causing these
impacts to Ralston Creek and that the "primary source" of uranium and molybdenum in
the alluvial groundwater is fill material placed there by Cotter during its mining
operation. Id. at 11-54 to 11-55 ("Groundwater in the alluvium and fill interacts with
surface water in Ralston Creek, resulting in elevated uranium concentrations in the
creek during certain times of the year."); Id. at 15-2 ( "At present, contaminants in the
alluvial aquifer are released to potential receptors through the surface water
pathway.").
Despite its awareness of the contamination in the alluvium and its direct
impact on Ralston Creek, Cotter argues it did not fail to minimize the impacts
resulting from water contaminated by the mine flowing across, through, and out of the
alluvium into Ralston Creek. Cotter also did not notify the Division of the
uncontrolled water flow through and across the alluvium, which the Division
observed during its May 18`h inspection. Cotter has violated, and continues to violate,
the requirement to minimize impacts to the prevailing hydrologic balance of the
affected land and of the surrounding area and to the quality and quantity of water in
surface and ground water systems both during and after the mining operation and
during reclamation. See § 34-32-116(7)(g), C.R.S.
In response to these facts, Cotter states "DRMS does not identify the
`prevailing hydrologic balance,"' and that "the prevailing hydrologic balance should
be a mine in a flooded, and not a dewatered, state." June 21, 2010 Cotter Response at
p. 3. Cotter's response is without merit.
Under the Mined Land Reclamation Act, an RTB must state the provision
alleged to be violated and the facts alleged to constitute the violation. § 34-32-124(1),
C.R.S. As stated above, the Division's RTB sets forth the specific statutory and
regulatory provisions alleged to have been violated and sets forth sufficient facts
alleged to constitute the violations.
The RTB referenced Cotter's proposed EPP (the Whetstone Report), and
referenced and attached the Division's Inspection Report. Cotter's proposed EPP
describes flow rates for Ralston Creek, the alluvium, and the surrounding area. See
Whetstone Report at pp. 8-4 to 8-40. The same proposed EPP describes water quality
for Ralston Creek, the alluvial ground water, mine pool water and other sources. See
Whetstone Report at pp. 9-1 to 9-51. Thus, Cotter was aware of the salient features of
the prevailing hydrologic balance identified in the RTB. Accordingly, the RTB
provides sufficient notice to Cotter concerning facts relevant to the violation. Electric
Power Research Institute, 737 P.2d at 828.
In addition, the Division's Inspection Report attached to the RTB states that a
possible violation exists for failure to minimize disturbance of the hydrologic balance
of the affected land and surrounding land and states that the same observation was
made in the Division's May 19, 2010 adequacy review of the Environmental