Laserfiche WebLink
Division's approval are adequate to contain water inside the Mine; (g) any historical coreholes <br />t4iuugh the valley floor are likely sealed and would only siighily increase the permeability of the <br />surrounding rock which generally has very low permeability; and (h) commencing dewatering <br />operations would obscure the efficacy of Corrective Action No. 1. <br />26. In mid-June 2010, Cotter worked with a water treatment system provider to install <br />a temporary water treatment system 28 days before the deadline of July 31, 2010 in Corrective <br />Action No. 1. On June 26, 2010, Cotter sent a letter to the Division submitting Technical <br />Revision 13 to the Permit. The letter set forth Cotter's plans for the temporary system for <br />treating water reporting to Sump No. 1, effective July 3, 2010. This temporary system was <br />designed to start treating ground water in the alluvium and fill while Cotter undertook the permit <br />process and worked with the water treatment provider to install the larger water treatment system <br />to comply with the requirements of Corrective Action No. 1. <br />26. On June 28, 2010, Cotter sent a letter to the Division addressing comments dated <br />June 15, 2010 that the Division had provided on Technical Revision 12. The letter expressly <br />incorporated by reference the Wyman Report. In addition, it described the intensive monitoring <br />of Ralston Creek and ground water monitor wells that would be implemented. <br />28. On July 1, 2010, Cotter sent another letter to the Division. Attached to the letter <br />were copies of Susan Wyman's curriculum vitae, the June 26, 2010 and June 28, 2010 letters <br />from Cotter to the Division, and the United States Bureau of Land Management's description of <br />the remediation process used for the Dinero Tunnel (located in Colorado), which included the <br />construction of a bulkhead to seal the tunnel and allowing it to fill up with water, thereby <br />stabilizing the surrounding ground water chemistry. <br />29. Also on July 1, 2010, the Division filed a response with the Board to Cotter's <br />May Notice Response ("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 />and the need for corrective action. See Board Rule 2.8.1(1), 2 Colo. Code Regs. 407-1, Rule <br />2.8.1 ("the proponent of an order shall have the burden of proof'); see also Colo. Rev. Stat. <br />§§ 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 />6