2011-02-09_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300

Home Browse Search

metals in groundwater and surface water (Ralston Creek and Reservoir);" and (3) "[t]he mine pool uranium concentration of 35.4 mg/L is a serious adverse impact to the prevailing hydrologic balance (background concentrations 0.0019 mg/L; MW-11, October 2009)." Order ¶T 39-40, AR:00851-52. Because the Board based its August 2010 decision on a record that does not contain evidence supporting its findings, the Board had no basis for concluding that the mine pool supports any violation of subsection 116(7)(g). The record fails to support findings one and two, above. Indeed, the Division's own evidence contradicts these findings. The Division presented a slide at the hearing admitting "Since the mine pool cone of depression has only reached steady state in the past few months, it is too early to tell if the mine pool is contributing to Ralston Creek." AR: 00476 (emphasis added). The Division's principal witness, David Bird, testified that the mine pool "is not at a point yet where I, based on my judgment, feel that it's making a contribution anywhere ...." AR:00902:5-7. Further, Mr. Bird explained "it is unknown how long it would take for this mine pool to reach Ralston Creek," AR:00885:23-24; "I don't believe there is any direct evidence that there is contamination from the mine pool to the creek," AR:01015:23-25; and "[w]e do not dispute" that "[t]here is no direct evidence that the mine pool is contributing to Ralston Creek." AR:01001:2-4. In closing, the Division stated "[t]he corrective actions being requested by the Division are indeed expensive, but probably less than the costs that will be incurred if mine pool water begins seeping into Ralston Creek and into Ralston Reservoir." AR:00472 (emphasis added); see also 00890:5-9. Moreover, the only sampling data collected to address directly whether the mine pool was contributing to contamination of Ralston Creek via the Schwartz Trend contradicted the Board's 27