2010-08-31_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300

• Permit No: M1977300
• IBM Index Class Name: ENFORCEMENT
• Doc Date: 8/31/2010
• Doc Name: Petition of Cotter Corp. for Reconsideration of Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order.
• From: Holme Roberts & Owen LLP
• To: DRMS
• Violation No.: MV2010018
• Email Name: DB2
• Email Name: AJW
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Exhibit 1
Rebuttal to the Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety Testimony before the Mined
Land Reclamation Board and
Technical Comments on Draft Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order
Regarding the Schwartzwalder Mine
by Susan A. Wyman, P. E., P. G., Whetstone Associates
July 30, 2010
This technical memorandum addresses the testimony of the Division of Reclamation, Mining and
Safety (DBMS) before the Mined Land Reclamation Board (MLRB) on July 12, 2010 and
technical comments on the Draft Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order (Draft Order)
regarding the Schwartzwalder Mine.
BACKGROUND URANIUM CONCENTRATIONS IN BEDROCK ARE ELEVATED ABOVE
THE 0.03 MG/L STANDARD
Background uranium concentrations in bedrock average 0.24 mg/L which naturally exceed the
0.03 mg/l standard. This is common in groundwater in many areas throughout Colorado.
DBMS selected a single sample result from bedrock monitoring well MW11 as representative of
background uranium concentrations in bedrock, and claimed that background concentrations in
bedrock are 0.0019 mg/L. This approach is erroneous for several reasons.
First, it is inconsistent with Colorado groundwater rules, which define "background level" as "the
level of any parameter in the ground water within a specified area as determined by representative
measurements of the ground water quality unaffected by the activity" (5 CCR 1002-41) (emphasis
added). Instead, DRMS used poor scientific and statistical procedures by selecting one sample out
of 16 as "representative." Proper procedure would have been to select the mean value or the mean
plus two standard deviations, to provide an appropriate confidence interval around the mean.
Instead, DRMS selected a single value and incorrectly implied that it is representative.
Second, MW11 is completed above the mine, not in the ore zone, and not representative of pre-
mining background concentrations in the ore zone. Since no monitoring wells were installed in
1952, background concentrations in the Schwartzwalder ore zone are not known. However, based
on observed background water quality conditions in the vicinity of uranium ore deposits
throughout the world, background groundwater concentrations in the Schwartzwalder Mine ore
deposit likely exceeded the 0.03 mg/l standard by two to three orders of magnitude for many
thousands of years prior to mining.
Third, none of the 2009 results from MW 11 are valid, because bentonite has entered the well
screen. This information was presented to DRMS in a meeting on March 19, 2010, but was not
stated in the April 19 EPP because Whetstone did not receive confirmation until the day the EPP
was due. On April 19, Cotter's field technical personnel confirmed that while purging MW 11, the
water "starts off clear and after three casing volumes looks (like] gray slime." Filtering for
dissolved metals takes significant time, and often requires a change in the filter. This condition
Whetstone Associates, Inc.
243 N. Main St. 6 Gunnison, Colorado 81230 6 Phone [phone] Fax [phone]