My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2022-07-18_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - M1977410
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Minerals
>
M1977410
>
2022-07-18_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - M1977410
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/16/2025 6:21:44 AM
Creation date
7/18/2022 12:57:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977410
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
7/18/2022
Doc Name
Notice of DMO Status - Appeal
From
Grand Island Resources, LLC
To
DRMS
Email Name
JPL
JLE
CMM
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
that the Division was relying on for making its preliminary DMO determination based on the <br /> alleged "degree" to which the water discharge was treated. The Division acknowledged that no <br /> such standard is found in the Rules, nor could the Division articulate what "degree" of water <br /> treatment would be acceptable to the Division such that a DMO designation would not be <br /> appropriate vs. the "degree" of water treatment that would put a mine over the Division's internal <br /> and undocumented threshold for such a designation. <br /> GIR also pointed out to the Division that GIR is not aware of the Division applying the <br /> DMO Rule to mines simply because they treat water discharge. GIR noted, as the Division had <br /> admitted, that the Cross Mine historically treated water discharge for years and was not <br /> designated as a DMO. Further, GIR inquired of the Division whether it was the Division's <br /> position that the mere fact that a mine uses a water treatment process is sufficient to classify the <br /> mine as a DMO under the Rules, to which the Division denied that was its position, despite the <br /> fact that the basis the Division provided for its preliminary DMO determination of the Cross <br /> Mine was apparently for that very reason. GIR also asked the Division if it had examples of <br /> other mines that the Division had designated as a DMO simply because it treated water discharge <br /> (to any "degree"), but the Division would not provide a response to that inquiry. <br /> GIR also told the Division that not only did it believe the DMO designation was <br /> improper, but that such a designation would be detrimental to GIR and the Cross Mine. GIR <br /> explained that GIR was continuing to work on its mine planning, which would be supplemented <br /> in part by the results of the ground water testing that is being conducted and will continue for the <br /> next 15 months. GIR further explained that it would be unduly harmed by the time and costs <br /> associated with the DMO application requirements, including the hiring of experts, GIR's <br /> personnel's time and attention, and the substantial costs associated with preparing the <br /> 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.