Laserfiche WebLink
Revision Request also explained that Cotter was declining to proceed with mine dewatering in <br />light of the lack of evidence that such activities would produce any significant improvement in <br />stream water quality. It provided information for a financial warranty relating to Corrective <br />Action No. 1. It also agreed to cease well abandonment (although Cotter had not abandoned any <br />wells) and to reactivate monitoring. <br />22. On June 21, 2010, Cotter filed a response to the May 2010 Notice ("May Notice <br />Response"). Cotter set forth in the May Notice Response that, while it disputed the Division's <br />allegations that it violated any of the cited applicable statutes or regulations, it was working <br />quickly to address Corrective Action No. 1, treating water reporting to Sump No. 1. However, it <br />strongly objected to the Corrective Action No. 2, dewatering the Mine, and the financial <br />warranty requirements of Corrective Action No. 3 to the extent they were dependent on the <br />dewatering required by Corrective Action No. 2. <br />23. Cotter also objected to the Division's demand from Cotter to submit a Technical <br />Revision to cover Corrective Action No. 2, dewatering and treatment of the mine pool, because <br />such a corrective action would not meet the definition of a "Technical Revision" in the <br />Division's regulations as "a change in the permit or an application, which does not have more <br />than a minor effect upon the approved or proposed Reclamation or Environmental Protection <br />Plan." Board Rule 1. 1(52), 2 Colo. Code Regs. 407-1. <br />24. The May Notice Response set forth specific defects in the May 2010 Notice's <br />premises, including that the May 2010 Notice failed to identify actual evidence supporting most <br />of its conclusions, that the proposed dewatering and treatment plan for the mine pool was <br />procedurally improper (because it would constitute an Amendment of the Permit, rather than a <br />Technical Revision as suggested by the Division), that Corrective Action No. 2 was likely to <br />worsen water quality in the mine pool, and that the costs of the proposed scheme would be <br />unreasonable relative to the contemplated benefits (assuming such benefits even manifested). <br />25. On June 25, 2010, Cotter sent a letter to the Division with an attached expert <br />report prepared by Susan A. Wyman, P.E., P.G., of Whetstone Associates, entitled Rationale for <br />Not Conducting Mine Dewatering and Mine Water Treatment at the Schwartzwalder Mine <br />("Wyman Report"). The Wyman Report set forth in detail the reasons that dewatering the Mine <br />is not an appropriate solution. These included that (a) the sump system together with the planned <br />treatment system that Cotter had already agreed to install would be adequate for capturing any <br />minor amounts of water from the mine pool that might exit the Mine; (b) water quality studies <br />had established that the mine pool was most likely not the source of uranium in Ralston Creek; <br />(c) pumping water out of the mine pool would introduce oxygen to the Mine which would <br />mobilize the uranium in the mine pool that had been settling out of the water since the mine pool <br />was allowed to fill, actually increasing contamination levels in the mine pool; (d) mine flooding <br />is a recognized remedial strategy for stabilizing ground water chemistry; (e) dewatering the Mine <br />is highly problematic in light of the Mine's present sealed condition which would constrain both <br />drilling operations and the installation of other equipment necessary to accomplish the demanded <br />decrease in the level of the mine pool; (f) the bulkheads previously installed pursuant to the <br />5