|
Indeed, there is evidence in the record that Cotter has no concrete or discernable plans to
<br />reinitiate mining at the JD -8. A good indication of this fact that is that the company recently moved a
<br />pile of mined ore back into the mine, demonstrating the lack of any ability, either economically or
<br />practically, to process any ore from JD -8. Also, recent activities at Cotter's Canon City, Colorado,
<br />uranium mill demonstrate that the milling facility is in decommissioning, including dismantling of all
<br />surface facilities and closure of the tailings impoundments at the site. Regarding future use of the site,
<br />Cotter sent a letter dated June 17, 2011, to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
<br />expressly confirming that the only purpose for which Cotter intends to keep its Canon City Mill license
<br />active is to process ore from the Mount Taylor Mine in New Mexico (letter attached). While even this
<br />contemplated activity is dubious given the market and condition of the Mount Taylor Mine, there
<br />simply appears to be no plan to mine and process any ore from JD -8.
<br />Lastly, the conditions that gave rise to the Division's approval of "intermittent status" to the
<br />JD -8 in the first place (which, as described, is suspect in the first place given the expiration of the ten -
<br />year maximum temporary cessation period in 1997), demonstrates that such status is no longer
<br />appropriate. For instance, in a January 15, 1997, letter from Glen Williams, Cotter Corporation, to Mr.
<br />James Stevens, Colorado Division of Minerals & Geology, Cotter states that "intermittent status" is
<br />appropriate because "many of the activities undertaken at the site fall within the current definition of
<br />mining operations." (Letter attached). Cotter details these activities that provide a basis for
<br />"intermittent status" as including "surface and underground drilling, determining ore reserves,
<br />radiometric scanning, ore sampling, mine mapping, mine feasibility studies, geological report
<br />preparation, mine surveying, timber installation, repair and ground control in preparation for mining,
<br />ventilation fan installation for geologic and survey projects." Based on the annual reports filed in the
<br />last several years, no such activities have occurred in any recent years. If it has occurred, Cotter has
<br />violated the MLRA by failing to notify the Division about the activities and failing to seek
<br />authorization to do so. Further justifying its proposal for "intermittent status" Cotter cites "the ability
<br />to produce ore from the Mine and process it through a milling facility has been actively maintained,
<br />thus allowing the Mine to remain as an intermittent operation. As such, the operation is maintained in
<br />a ready state with an ability to come on -line quickly and produce as the market dictates." However, as
<br />demonstrated, the company has now dismantled its milling facility and thus circumstances have
<br />dramatically changed with respect to Cotter's ability to bring the Mine back into production and
<br />process the ore through a milling facility.
<br />Based on the foregoing, Sheep Mountain Alliance asserts that the Division is without authority
<br />to process this Amendment to a mining operation permit, as Cotter is not eligible to extend its period
<br />of cessation of production activities. Even if eligible, Cotter has failed to provide the required
<br />information necessary to maintain any "intermittent status" designation. Thus, Sheep Mountain
<br />Alliance requests that the Division begin the process of terminating the permit and requiring
<br />reclamation, as expressly required by the MLRA.
<br />All Areas Covered by the Mine Permit Should be Covered by the EPP
<br />Cotter concedes on page 1 on the EPP that its "permit includes a proposed upper affected area
<br />on the DOE JD -8 lease tract," Cotter nevertheless failed in any way to include the upper affected area
<br />in the EPP. See e.g., EPP page 33 (Cotter declining to provide any surface water detail for the upper
<br />area). This is not allowable under the MLRA and implementing regulations. For example, Rule 6.4.21
<br />specifically requires that the EPP include discussion of "all areas ... that will be or have the potential
<br />to be affected by uranium mining." Here, because the upper site is included in the permit, it must be
<br />3
<br />
|