Laserfiche WebLink
31. On July 8, 2010, the Division partially approved Technical Revision 12 to the <br />(,?I'Llit govi.?rfwig reactivation of Sump No. 1 and ireatnieni 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. Over the course of the hearing, the Division <br />repeatedly acknowledged that it did not actually have any evidence that water from the mine <br />pool was reaching Ralston Creek. When asked point blank by a member ofthe Board whether <br />there was "evidence now of contamination from the mine pool to the creek," the Division <br />responded, "I would say I don't believe there is any direct evidence that there is contamination <br />from the mine pool to the creek." <br />34. The Division also admitted that its proposed dewatering plan was an extreme <br />measure, in that it would not just accomplish a reversal of the hydrological gradient away from <br />Ralston Creek, but extend it all the way to Ralston Reservoir. Furthermore, the Division <br />effectively conceded that it agreed with Cotter's cost estimates for the dewatering project, and <br />even those cost estimates did not include extensive measures that the Division claimed would be <br />needed to provide access and address safety issues. The Division also failed to offer any <br />explanation of the relative cost-benefit of not dewatering the Mine and simply treating the <br />alluvium and fill adjacent to Ralston Creek versus the elaborate and technically complex plan the <br />Division had proposed for dewatering the Mine. <br />35. The Board invited witnesses from Denver Water and the City of Arvada to <br />address the question of what costs were being imposed on their respective bodies by the need to <br />conduct more extensive treatment of water drawn from Ralston Reservoir, but neither of them <br />could actually articulate what, if any, increased costs they were facing. <br />36. After hearing testimony from both sides, the Board closed testimony and began <br />deliberations. Without formally reopening testimony, the Board asked the Division for input on <br />the course of action the Board should take. A Division witness then offered several observations <br />about the likelihood of water from the mine pool reaching Ralston Creek, without any <br />particularly identified evidentiary basis. <br />7