Laserfiche WebLink
Applications and Technical Reviews <br /> There is a long application process for mining and for a technical revision. There are back and <br /> forth requirements and negotiations between the Applicant and the DRMS that could last for <br /> months on end.The final product is a good set of rules and regulations for the <br /> Applicant/Operator to follow and for the DRMS to enforce . It appears that the Application and <br /> Technical Revisions are there for the protection of the public, protection of the environment <br /> and to follow the State Regulations. This is where the confusion started for me. The Loloff Pit <br /> was required to complete a Technical Revision for the Loloff Pit since it was changing from a <br /> wet mining operation to a dry mining operation. ' ( 53) "Technical Revision" means a change in <br /> the permit or an application, which does not have more than a minor effect upon the approved or <br /> proposed Reclamation Plan.' Thinking that the DRMS requirement of the TR was around 2012 <br /> and was not completed until late 2013. The TR included an agreement and commitment by the <br /> Operator for monthly well monitoring and ground water trigger points that were to be included <br /> with the annual reports to the DRMS. <br /> How can the Loloff Pit send in Annual reports to the DRMS for seven years (2013-2019) <br /> without the required SPO Well Monitoring Data? And without the required Trigger Point <br /> reporting? How can the Operator include data from the Derr Pit monitoring wells in the Loloff <br /> Pit annual reports 2017, 2018 and 2019 and the DRMS did not notice? How is this not a <br /> violation?The Well Monitoring was set up for the" Protection of the Public". The well <br /> monitoring was to make sure that the SPOs ground water was returned to the pre dewatering <br /> levels. No Data! No Protection of the Public! <br /> The first McGrane Report of 2015 required the Operator to monitor the SPOs wells (west of <br /> the Loloff Pit near 1st Ave) before, during and after the slurry wall installation at the Loloff <br /> Pit. Peter Hayes accepted this report for the DRMS within 30 days after it was sent to the file. <br /> The DRMS did not monitor the file for any data that was required. This report was to monitor <br /> the ground water levels for the " Protection the Public". The monitoring was to make sure <br /> there was not any damages to the SPOs before, during and after the slurry wall was installed. <br /> Why did it take seven months for Eric Scott to answer a request for information about the <br /> Derr Pit Amendment ground water monitoring and water quality? Our Water Engineer <br /> indicated that the file did not include the required 15 month/5 quarter Well measurements <br /> from the Derr Amendment . It has been my experience the a request falls on deaf ears unless it <br /> is in a form of a complaint?This information and data is a requirement of the application. <br /> Director Means did contact the operator asking for the ground water monitoring for the Derr <br /> Pit. The Operator provided data from the original Derr Pit and not from the Amendment area. <br /> Director Means stated that the information provided by the Operator should have completed <br /> the 15 month requirement. Director Means was not correct in his letter dated May 7th <br /> paragraph 3. The data that was provided by the operator was not correct because it was for the <br /> existing Derr Pit and not the Amendment. Again had to file a complaint in order to get a <br /> 4 <br />