Laserfiche WebLink
that could be potentially detrimental to human or aquatic life, then virtually every mine in <br /> Colorado that has a water discharge treatment system would have to be designated as a DMO. <br /> As a result, there would be very few 1 10 permit holders and even fewer operators with <br /> exemptions to 112 permits. Clearly, that is not the intent of Rule 1.1(1), nor how the rule should <br /> be or has been applied. <br /> As noted above, during GIR's meeting with the Division to discuss the Division's <br /> preliminary DMO determination, the Division refused to disclose whether there were mines that <br /> treat water that are not designated as DMOs. However, our own analysis of the Division's <br /> records revealed a number of 1 10 permitted mines in Colorado that have discharge settling ponds <br /> and other water treatment systems covered under their permits.4 See Ohlson v. Weil, 953 P.2d <br /> 939, 942 (Colo. App. 1997) (rejecting agency's current interpretation that was contrary to its <br /> prior actions). There have even been certain instances where the Division has even granted an <br /> exemption under 112 permits to uranium operators. There is nothing unique about the Cross <br /> Mine's water treatment system or the mine's operations that would justify treating it differently <br /> than other mines or even differently than its previous treatment. <br /> GIR is compliant with its mining permit number M-1977-410 and with its water <br /> discharge permit number CO-0032751. There are no activities or conditions at the Cross Mine <br /> that warrant the need for any increased regulatory obligations. The Division's DMO <br /> determination amounts to an unwarranted penalty assessed against the Cross Mine as the mine <br /> does not meet the criteria for designation as a DMO under Section 34-32-112.5, Rule 1.1(1), or <br /> Rule 1.1(20). <br /> a For example,Walker Ruby Mining Company, Inc.,owner/operator of Ruby Trust Mine,Permit No.M 1979181 <br /> holds a 110 permit,had a water treatment process,was found to have exceeded the permit effluent discharge <br /> limitations,which included the limitations of copper discharge levels into the Sneffels Creek,and was not <br /> designated as a DMO. <br /> 12 <br />