Cotter Corporation NSL Cañon City, Colorado

By TRACY HARMON | tharmon@chieftain.com | 0 comments

CANON CITY — In hopes the state will deal with, "the huge elephant in the room," attorneys for Colorado Citizens Against Toxic Waste have filed an amended lawsuit against the state health department.

The Cotter Uranium Mill processed yellowcake uranium from 1958 to 1987. In 1988, the mill was identified by the Environmental Protection Agency as a Superfund cleanup site.

The mill has not processed yellowcake since 2005.

An amended complaint was filed in Denver District Court Friday by attorneys Travis Stills of the Energy Minerals Law Center in Durango and Jeffrey Parsons with the Western Mining Action Project in Lyons, on behalf of Colorado Citizens Against Toxic Waste. The defendants are the state health department and Steve Tarlton in his capacity as manager of the state's radiation control program, plus Cotter Corp. also is listed as a party.

Because Colorado radiation regulations require a decommissioning funding plan that outlines a cost estimate for closing the mill, Cotter and state officials have been working since 2009 to try to pin down an updated cost estimate.

However, the lawsuit alleges the bond remains inadequate despite the fact that Cotter Corp. has agreed to up the bond from $14.7 million to $20.8 million by June of this year to cover cost of decommissioning the entire mill when it closes.

The state estimated cleanup will cost about $43.7 million while Cotter estimated it would be $23.2 million. On Dec. 15, the state health officials agreed to leave the bond at $20.8 million despite public comment that urged it should be $53 million.

"We would like to see them (Cotter Corp.) post the entire $43.7 million at least. It is a federal program the state is implementing and adding a 25 percent contingency (an additional $10.9 million) is standard," Parsons said. "Both the bonding amount and the way it is calculated are serious problems because they are the first line of defense for the taxpayers of Colorado.

"There are a lot of examples in the state where the taxpayers are stuck with someone else's bill," Parsons said.

Tarlton wrote in his final decision that Cotter is currently in the process of updating the decommissioning plan based on changes at the facility since 2005 and an updated version is expected in March 2011. Tarlton said the new plan and revisions in anticipated future operations will result in additional changes to financial assurance to be evaluated again this summer.

The suit also alleges that decommission work on the old mill is being done without benefit of any kind of updated decommissioning plan since the last plan was inked in 2005. Parsons said there is no current decommissioning plan, final closure plan or reclamation plan.

"That is the huge elephant in the room, they (Cotter) are demolishing old buildings, old tanks and putting them in the tailings impoundments and what is going to happen with the tailings impoundment? Currently, they are pumping back contaminated water to adjust for leaking.

"You cannot have a long-term closure with the need for active treatment. Cotter will say they've spent millions and worked hard but what is the future?

"The long term, at-site, permanently contaminated tailings pond keeps the state on the hook forever. The first choice must be to put the tailings in a condition that is stable and that could result in significant expense," Parsons explained.

Parsons said the suit is a "fairly extraordinary measure" designed to assure the decommissioning is done right and the old mill is cleaned up as it should be.

"There is no room for error left," he said.

Cotter Mill Manager John Hamrick could not be reached for comment Wednesday. Hamrick said last September that Cotter is conducting operational studies to see if the company can get back into business.

As a result, the old equipment needs to be disposed of so the company can build an all-new mill if it is deemed feasible.

Parsons said that he has serious questions about whether the current mill site is capable of serving a new mill facility.

"It is hard to gauge the likelihood of them opening a new mill. They would be subject to the main criteria of newer federal law which states a mill should be remote from populated areas and I don't think anyone can argue that site is remote," Parsons said.

Hamrick has kept the state health department posted on the company's work to tear down old mill buildings, equipment and tanks in letters relating to the financial assurance discussion.

"Cotter will claim that its work has been OK'd by the state but this ad hoc decommissioning is a serious problem," Parsons said.

The state has 20 days to respond to the amended lawsuit.