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

Protection Plan. Inspection Report at p. 2. The Division's RTB is sufficient to
provide notice to Cotter of the area of concern and the relevant prevailing hydrologic
balance that was being disturbed. See RTB at p. 1.2
Given the language of the statute and the information in the RTB and the
attached inspection report, Cotter knew that the relevant hydrologic balance included
consideration of the affected land in the mine permit area as well as the "surrounding
area." Cotter also knew that the chief concern of the Division was the presence of
elevated levels of uranium in the mine pool, alluvial area adjacent to Ralston Creek
and in Ralston Creek. RTB at p. 1. Moreover, Cotter knew that the Division was
concerned about the connection between the cessation of treatment and water
pumping and impacts to the creek and about the surface water runoff "exiting the
mine area and flowing into Ralston Creek." Inspection Report at p. 2. In the context
of the ongoing and extended discussion between the Division and Cotter concerning
the EPP, the Division's RTB provided sufficient notice of the facts underlying the
violations.
Cotter also argues that it has appropriately minimized impacts to Ralston
Creek through various activities. The simple fact is that elevated levels of uranium
exist in the mine pool, the alluvial area and Ralston Creek because of Cotter's mining
operations. Cotter did not take steps to implement water treatment of any kind until
the Division sent the RTB. Cotter now agrees that "taking action," that is conducting
water treatment, to protect Ralston Creek is appropriate. June 21, 2010 Response at
p. 2. Cotter has violated § 34-32-116(7)(g).
II. Cotter has failed to protect the Ralston Creek Drainage system from
pollution in violation of C.R.S. § 34-32-116(7)(c).
Cotter was aware of the contaminants present in the alluvium created by its
mining operation (as described in the EPP and above), but did not take appropriate
action to prevent pollution to the alluvial area and to Ralston Creek in violation of
§ 34-32-116(7)(c), C.R.S. That provision requires "acid or toxic forming material" be
"handled ... in a manner that will protect the drainage system from pollution." Id.
Cotter asserts that DRMS does not "identify what ... is being 'handled."' Based on
that, Cotter asserts that DRMS has failed to allege facts that constitute a violation of
section 116(7)(c).
In its 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." RTB at p. 1. The RTB then asserts a violation of section
2 Please note that contrary to Cotter's apparent argument, operators have a duty to minimize impacts to
water quality in addition to the duty to minimize disturbances to the hydrologic balance. § 34-32-116(7)(g)
C A.S. ( -disturbances to the prevailing hydrologic balance and ... to the quality of water in surface
and groundwater systems ... shall be minimized." (emphasis added.))
6