Laserfiche WebLink
Corrective Action No. 2 bear a reasonable relationship to the environmental benefits derived <br />from such measure and economic reasonableness. If anything, the Defendants emphasize the <br />technical difficulties of Corrective Action No. 2 without any information regarding the costs of <br />addressing those difficulties. For example, they state that the mine pool contains an estimated <br />42,000 pounds of uranium, over 1,000 times above the stream standard for uranium, and that the <br />mine pool contains molybdenum, thallium, iron, manganese, sulfate and radium at <br />concentrations above applicable standards!' Answer Brief at 8, 18 -19. The Defendants, <br />however, failed to present evidence of the costs of pumping out and treating above - ground to <br />stream standards such mine pool water which is now contained in the mine workings. Testimony <br />that "dewatering is possible" fails to provide any evidence on reasonableness, including <br />economic reasonableness. See Answer Brief at 52. Moreover, the Defendants cite a case that <br />does not involve the circumstances here in which the economic costs of reclamation and the <br />reasonableness of reclamation measures were material requirements in a legislative declaration <br />3 This estimate is based on the mine pool containing 35 mg/L uranium. AR:00875:11 -15. <br />The uranium concentration in the mine pool on the date of the hearing was 33.4 milligrams per <br />liter, demonstrating that uranium concentrations and amounts in the mine pool are steadily and <br />consistently declining. AR:00957:2 -13. Therefore, the 42,000 pounds of uranium number is <br />inflated. <br />4 The Answer Brief misleads by discussing concentrations of contaminants in the mine <br />pool that are above a state standard. See Answer Brief at 11, 18 -19. The Defendants ignore that <br />these standards do not apply within the mine pool. Instead, they apply at a compliance point <br />SW -BPL [Below Property Line], which is in Ralston Creek as set by the Division. See <br />AR:00354 (discussion by the Director of the Colorado Water Quality Control Division of the <br />groundwater point of compliance as "Ralston Creek at the lower property boundary "); 2 Colo. <br />Code Regs. § 407 -1 (Hard Rock Rule), Rule 1.1(42) (definition of "Point of Compliance" as <br />"locations down gradient of the facility or activity at which water sampling may be conducted to <br />demonstrate compliance with applicable groundwater standards established by the Water Quality <br />Control Commission, or permit conditions required by the Office or Board to measure <br />compliance with the MLRB permit"). The Answer Brief also suggests that water seeping into <br />the upper levels of the mine is affected by acid rock drainage, see Answer Brief at 19, but acid <br />rock drainage is not an issue at the Schwartzwalder Mine because the mine has net neutralizing <br />capacity. AR:00953:7 -9. <br />7 <br />