Laserfiche WebLink
than 1000 times the state water quality standard of 0.03 mg/L. ` Ralston Creek flows <br />into Ralston Reservoir, one of the primary water sources for residents of Denver and <br />Arvada. The mine itself is located .06 miles from Ralston Creek and 1.92 miles from <br />Ralston Reservoir. Whetstone Report at p. 8-1. <br />5. Given the contaminants in the mine pool, the pool's hydraulic connection to <br />Ralston Creek, the fact that the creek flows into a drinking water source, and the <br />testimony from the City of Arvada that for the first time in 20 years, the city found <br />uranium in its finished drinking water, transcript at p. 163, there must be certainty in <br />the corrective actions imposed to address the violations. Draw down and treatment of <br />the mine pool provides that certainty. <br />In addition, Cotter cannot state with certainty whether the mine pool is <br />connected to Ralston Creek by any other pathway than the alluvial ground water. <br />Cotter now states that a pipe has discharged water from the mine pool. Thus, Cotter's <br />plan to just treat the water reporting to Sump Number One would not be sufficient <br />since it would not capture mine water discharges at other locations. Also, that Cotter <br />found a pipe that it thinks is discharging mine pool water does not mean there aren't <br />other pathways.3 <br />6. Drawing down and treating the mine pool immediately addresses on-going impacts <br />by the mine pool to Ralston Creek by creating a hydraulic gradient away from Ralston <br />Creek and provides certainty that the mine pool will not be in communication with <br />drinking water resources by pathways that are currently unidentified. See Board's <br />discussion of this issue at transcript, pp. 174-176. <br />7. As Board Member Mike King stated at the hearing, this case involves human <br />health and safety, and protection of the environment, transcript at p. 177, and the <br />water users should not bear the risks, consequences or costs of Cotter's mining <br />operation - Cotter should. Transcript at pp. 185-186. <br />8. Cotter's argues that the violations pertaining to the mine pool are inconsistent with <br />law because the mine pool is not a point of compliance. Cotter's argument is <br />misguided. Whether the mine pool is a point of compliance under water quality laws <br />is irrelevant to the violations the Board found under the Mined Land Reclamation Act <br />and regulations regarding hydrologic balance, protecting the drainage system from <br />pollution and off site damage. <br />9. Lastly, Cotter argues that implementation of the mine pool drawdown and <br />treatment requires a permit amendment, not a technical revision ("TR") and that the <br />.. Cotter's E,PP lists a number of constituents that are far above Colorado =groundwater standards: Total <br />Dissolved Solids are near _;_3100 ngd; molybdenum is 1.45 mg/l_ and total radium 226 is 175 pCi/L. <br />Whetstone Report at 9-34. <br />Indeed, Cotter's discovery of the pipe begs the question about what other pathways exist. <br />6