2011-05-26_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300

Home Browse Search

results in and along Ralston Creek, demonstrating that the mine pool does not contribute uranium to Ralston Creek via the Schwartz Trend. Opening Brief at 8. This sampling was performed after the electrical conductivity readings described in the Answer Brief at 15, and demonstrated that the Schwartz Trend was not a conduit for uranium contamination to Ralston Creek. See AR:00087 for discussion of water quality monitoring and gamma results. The Defendants also refer to the West Rogers Fault, without acknowledging that the West Rogers Fault does not appear to directly connect to Ralston Creek. See Answer Brief at 19, AR:00078. The Defendants continually refer to Cotter's consulting hydrologist's opinion that the mine pool at most would contribute 0.08% to 8% of the flow (called mixing calculation) to the alluvium. Answer Brief at 8 -9, 29, 30, 41, but ignore the key words "at most." The Order acknowledged that "[a]t the July 2010 hearing, the Operator explained that the calculation was a worst case evaluation of the maximum upper limit of possible contribution from the mine pool." AR:00848 1123. Moreover, the Division testified that the mixing calculation should be disregarded. AR:00477; 01001:11 -22. The Defendants argue that Cotter's attorney said that Cotter's expert had been "forthright" in the EPP, and suggest that Cotter's attorney was referring to the mixing calculation. Answer Brief at 31 (citing AR:00908). The actual statement made at the Hearing was that Susan Wyman, Cotter's consultant, has "been forthright in identifying the source of the periodic exceedance of the Ralston Creek uranium stream standard, which is the alluvium and fill material that will be addressed by Corrective Action Number 1." AR:00908:18 -25. The Defendants state that the Board "concluded that the mine pool was contributing uranium to Ralston Creek," and allege that certain citations in the Answer Brief support that 14