Laserfiche WebLink
Moreover, the Order should be reconsidered because finding of a violation of section 34- <br />32-116(7)(g) is based on activity that the State of Colorado expressly approved. The Board <br />found that "disturbances were minimized when the site's water treatment systems were <br />operational," implying that no violation existed at that time. Order 139. However, as explained <br />at the hearing, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment ("CDPHE") <br />authorized Cotter to shut down the mine water treatment system and the alluvial treatment <br />system. Tr. of Hearing at 117:9-12; Division Slide Titled Background ("Water treatment system <br />implemented in 1972 and shut down June 2002 per the CDHPE discharge permit."). A statutory <br />violation and fine cannot be based on activity that CDHPE authorized Cotter to take. <br />For all these reasons, the Board should reconsider the portion of the Order finding that <br />Cotter violated Colo. Rev. Stat. § 34-32-116(7)(g). <br />(B) No Violation of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 34-32-116(7)(c). <br />On several bases, the Board should also reconsider the portion of the Order finding that <br />Cotter violated Colo. Rev. Stat. § 34-32-116(7)(c), which provides "Acid-forming or toxic- <br />producing material that has been mined shall be handled in a manner that will protect the <br />drainage system from pollution." The mine pool cannot support a violation of this statute. <br />First, as explained in section L(A) above, the record does not show that the mine pool has <br />increased concentrations of uranium and other metals outside the mine workings, including in <br />Ralston Creek or Ralston Reservoir. No basis therefore exists to find that the mine pool is <br />causing an existing pollution of a drainage system. <br />Second, the record does not support the finding that "[a]s the mine pool attains <br />hydrostatic equilibrium, it poses a serious threat to downgradient water resources." Order 143. <br />No data has been produced to support this alleged threat. Nor has the Division produced any <br />modeling or other scientific analysis documenting that the mine pool will pollute any drainage <br />6