2010-09-14_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300 (2)

Home Browse Search

3. If the pipe began flowing on July 19, 2010, Whetstone believes that the earliest arrival of pipe water at MW 9 would be October 15, 2010 under normal hydraulic gradients. Id. If water from the pipe flowed toward Sump No. 4, which is cross-gradient of the pipe, Whetstone has determined that the earliest. arrival of pipe water at Sump No. 4 would be August 24, 2010 under normal hydraulic gradients. Id. Pumping at MW 9 began August 19, 2010, and pumping at Sump No. 4 began August 16, 2010. While Cotter initially suggested that the pipe flow could be a reason why uranium in Ralston Creek remains elevated despite treatment of alluvial groundwater, further assessment of the data, including confirmation of the primary location of impacts to Ralston Creek and associated evidence of groundwater flow directions, along with plausible groundwater transport rates, suggest that the two are unlikely to be related. A more probable explanation of impacts for July 2010 and August 2010 is the lag time described above. While the Division's Response at page 3 states that "Cotter's attorneys told undersigned counsel that they intend to amend Cotter's Petition for Reconsideration based on this information," Cotter's counsel actually stated that they planned to amend the petition after receiving the results of the video. Because the results of the video are inconclusive, no amendment to the petition is currently necessary. No matter what the investigation eventually shows, Cotter's overall and consistent position that any conduit from the mine pool would flow to the alluvium where it would be treated by the 100-gpm water treatment system will not be affected. See Cotter Petition at 11. III. The Cotter Petition Provides a Substantial Basis to Reconsider the Decision The Division's statement that "Cotter does not provide anything new in its Petition" is inaccurate and overreaching. See Division Response at 3. 6 #1493118 v1 den