Laserfiche WebLink
36. ... The Board considered the potential expense of dewatering the mine <br />against the threat to human health and safety posed from contaminated water <br />migrating to Ralston Creek and Reservoir. The benefits expected to result from <br />dewatering outweigh the Operator's potential costs of carrying out the corrective <br />actions. AR:00851. <br />First, the record shows that neither Denver Water nor Arvada are currently treating water <br />for uranium nor are they incurring any costs related to uranium removal or treatment. Denver <br />Water wrote the Division a letter commenting on Cotter's EPP, and acknowledged that: <br />the Moffat Treatment Plant was not designed to remove uranium, molybdenum, <br />or other metals - any removal is incidental. <br />The sludge from the Moffat Treatment Plant currently meets the requirements for <br />beneficial reuse as a bulking agent in compost materials; it is currently used by a <br />local vendor in this manner. <br />AR:00358. At the July 12, 2010 hearing, Denver Water repeated its ability to use sludge for <br />beneficial reuse. AR:01022:11-14. Similarly, Arvada's EPP comment letter admitted that its <br />conventional treatment is "effective at reducing uranium in the concentrations [it] has seen to <br />date" and that "the City currently recycles our residuals - a green and sustainable practice ...." <br />AR:00365. <br />Second, the record contains no information about any costs that Denver Water or Arvada <br />will incur in the future, if uranium levels increase. Instead, Arvada testified that "[w]ish I could <br />come and say exactly what the cost would be" and then did not even provide any estimate of <br />costs. AR:01023:2-3. In Arvada's letter commenting on the EPP, Arvada simply states that the <br />costs (if ever even incurred) would be "an unknown but significant amount." AR:00365. <br />Denver Water provided no information at all about costs in its testimony other than that if <br />uranium levels in the residuals were to increase in the future that disposal of the residuals "could <br />increase costs significantly." AR:01022:20-21. Again, Denver Water provided no evidence <br />21