Laserfiche WebLink
29. Also on July 1, 2010, the Division filed a response with the Board to Cotter's <br />June 21, 2010 filing ("Division Response"). The Division Response repeatedly made illogical <br />leaps from the fact that uranium is present in Ralston Creek to the unsupported conclusion that <br />leakage from the mine pool was a substantial contributing factor. The Division Response failed <br />to address Cotter's concerns as to whether dewatering the Mine would actually increase levels of <br />uranium in the mine pool and undertook no analysis of the anticipated cost of dewatering the <br />Mine or the engineering challenges associated with installing pump systems inside the Mine and <br />other necessary steps to accomplish the proposed dewatering. The Division Response also <br />erroneously presumed that Cotter had the burden of disproving that the mine pool was the source <br />of any of the uranium detected in Ralston Creek, stating, "In addition, Cotter cannot state with <br />certainty whether the mine pool is connected to Ralston Creek by any other pathway than the <br />alluvial ground water," when it was the Division's burden to establish a violation had occurred. <br />See Board Rule 2.8.1(1), 2 Colo. Code Regs. 407-1 ("the proponent of an order shall have the <br />burden of proof'); see also Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 24-4-105(7), -106(7). <br />30. On July 1, 2010, the Division also approved the temporary treatment plan for <br />water reporting to Sump No. 1 per Technical Revision 13 to the Permit. <br />31. On July 8, 2010, the Division partially approved Technical Revision 12 to the <br />Permit governing reactivation of Sump No. 1 and treatment of water reporting to it. <br />32. On July 9, 2010, Cotter filed a response with the Board addressing the points <br />raised in the Division Response ("Cotter Reply"). The Cotter Reply set forth at length the <br />numerous legal and factual errors and omissions of the Division Response, including (a) the <br />Division's unreasonable and legally unsupportable conclusion that dewatering the Mine would <br />preserve the "prevailing hydrological balance" or minimize disturbance of the balance (which <br />still remained undefined by the Division) and the lack of evidence that dewatering the Mine <br />would have any impact on uranium levels in Ralston Creek; (b) the Division's failure to identify <br />any actual "handling" of materials subject to C.R.S. § 34-32-116(7)(c); (c) the Division's failure <br />to produce actual evidence showing that the mine pool was affecting water quality in Ralston <br />Creek; and (d) the Division's failure to address Cotter's points about the infeasibility and <br />expense of dewatering the Mine combined with the likelihood that dewatering the Mine would <br />increase uranium levels in the mine pool. <br />33. On July 12, 2010, a hearing was held by the Board at which both Cotter and the <br />Division presented testimony and witnesses. (Exhibit B - Excerpts of July 12, 2010 Hearing <br />Transcript.) Over the course of the hearing, the Division repeatedly acknowledged that it did not <br />actually have any evidence that water from the mine pool was reaching Ralston Creek. For <br />example, the Division made such statements as: <br />"`There is no direct evidence that the mine pool is contributing to Ralston Creek.' <br />We do not dispute that." (Exh. B, 141:2-4.) <br />"`The mine pool is not affecting Ralston Creek via the Schwartz Trend.' Again, <br />we do not dispute this." (Exh. B, 141:23-25.) <br />7