2022-07-18_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - M1977410

Home Browse Search

March 18,2022 Page 4 For the reasons set forth below, the Division's conclusion that Cross Mine is a DMO is inconsistent with the facts and is a misapplication of Rules 1.1(1)and 1.1(20). Legal Background Regarding Rule 1.1 The definition of acid or toxic forming materials was added to the Mined Land Reclamation Act ("MLRA")by S.B. 93-247. The bill was prompted by the disaster at the Summitville Mine where cyanide used to extract minerals was released into the Alamosa River. Colorado Min. Assn v. Bd. of Cty. C'omm'rs of Summit Cty., 199 P.3d 718, 727 (Colo. 2009). "[T]he purpose" of the 1993 amendments "was to ensure that mining operations utilizing toxic or acidic chemicals would receive increased regulatory oversight under the MLRA." Id. To achieve that purpose, the amendments "vest[ed] the Board with the authority to authorize the use of toxic or acidic chemicals, including cyanide, for mineral extraction in mining operations, under heavily regulated conditions" and created a more heavily regulated category of mines ("designated mining operations"), which included "operations utilizing toxic or acidic chemicals, such as cyanide, for extractive metallurgical processing."Id. These amendments and the definitions of acid and toxic materials were specifically designed to address mining operations that use harmful chemicals to extract the target mineral from the surrounding rock or which produce, or have significant potential to produce, acid mine drainage, a primary mobilizer of metallics from host rocks. The statute and the regulations underwent a second round of substantial amendments to address the increase in uranium mines that similarly used toxic chemicals to extract the uranium. H.B. 08- 1 161, 66th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2008); 2 CCR 407-1, Permanent Rule Docket No. 2010-00032 (Aug. 12, 2010). The sponsor of the bill, Senator Steven Johnson, explained that the "bill deals with in situ uranium mining technology," which is "not a technology that [the government] ha[s] a lot of experience with in the state of Colorado and that's why [the legislature] update[d] the regulations." Audio Colorado State Senate Proceeding at 2:30-2:33 & 3:05-3:11 (Apr. 20, 2008). The amendments in both the statute and the regulations specifically increased regulatory oversight over uranium in situ leach mining. See H.B. 08-1161 §§ 1, 3, 5, 66th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2008) (adding uranium mines to DMO categories and adding additional permit requirements for in situ leach mines); Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority, and Purpose, 2 CCR 407-1, Permanent Rule Docket No. 2010-00032 (Aug. 12, 2010), at pp. 4-5 (explaining that the changes to the regulations were intended to "mirror" H.B. 08-1161's goal of"provid[ing] new requirements for uranium mining operations"). As with the initial amendments in 1993, this more recent amendment to the MLRA was meant to address mines that use harmful chemicals to extract the target mineral from the surrounding rock.