Laserfiche WebLink
level is lowered and the mine walls are exposed, then the oxygen can directly interact with the <br />uranium minerals and dissolve both the precipitates that have accumulated as the mine flooded <br />and the solid-phase uranium minerals remaining in the wall rock. <br />The Whetstone Report also points out that a significantly larger water treatment system <br />would be required to treat mine pool water. Whetstone Report, Exh. 4, at 1. The noise, traffic, <br />dust, and "carbon footprint" associated with plant operations would hinder or disturb recreation, <br />wildlife, and open space. Id. <br />IV. The Mine Pool Dewatering and Treatment Does Not Qualify for a Technical <br />Revision. <br />The May 21, 2010 letter from the Division, entitled "Notice of a Reason to Believe a <br />Violation Exists at the Schwartzwalder Mine," attached a May 18, 2010 Inspection Report which <br />required a "technical revision" to "include plans and implementation schedules" to "[r]einitiate <br />mine dewatering and water discharge treatment sufficient to bring the mine water table to a level <br />at least 500 feet below the Steve Level, and sufficient to reestablish a hydraulic gradient away <br />from Ralston Creek." Cotter has consistently taken the position that, assuming the Division was <br />justified in requiring mine dewatering and treatment (which it was not), such a corrective action <br />could not be implemented by a technical revision. As set forth in Charlotte Neitzel's June 21, <br />2010 letter to Cheryl Linden at page 7, the Division regulations define a "Technical Revision" as <br />a "change in the permit or an application, which does not have more than a minor effect upon the <br />approved or proposed Reclamation or Environmental Protection Plan." 2 CCR 407-1 Rule <br />1.1(52). Corrective Action No. 2, which is mine dewatering and treatment, greatly exceeds the <br />"minor effect" threshold for a technical revision. On July 1, 2010, in its response at page 9 to <br />Cotter's June 21, 2010 submittal, the Division stated that "whether the mine dewater is a <br />technical revision or a permit amendment is not ripe for resolution at this time." The Board did <br />19