Laserfiche WebLink
Comment/Objection Narrative* <br /> Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments and your consideration of them. <br /> Mining by its very nature is a dirty business and highly disruptive."It is the further intent of the general assembly <br /> by the enactment of this article to conserve natural resources,to aid in the protection of wildlife and aquatic <br /> resources, ...and to protect and promote the health,safety,and general welfare of the people of this state.34- <br /> 32-102(1). Legislative declaration. <br /> Toxic discharge are expected by this operation since prior mining activity did result in acid mine drainage and <br /> the release of toxic substances in the effluent discharge, in violation of environmental safeguards. Previous <br /> toxic releases resulted from chemicals used during underground activities.The applicant admits that the same <br /> underground mining methods will continue.The application admits the"potential for mineralized materials to <br /> generate acidic water."It is insufficient that the applicant is relying on representations that the ore will be <br /> transferred off-site and there will be no chemical processing on-site.This did not prevent discharges in the past. <br /> The applicant has installed a water treatment system.The baseline data reveals that even without mining <br /> activity the current water treatment is inadequate. Data provided reveals continued inadequacy in treating <br /> copper.Copper discharges were one of the causes of the prior violations and shutting down of the mining <br /> operations.Obviously this brings into question how the existing water treatment system will handle the increase <br /> in mining activity. Moreover,the application does not disclose the future level of toxic chemicals to be used and <br /> the amount of water treatment that will be necessary. Is the current water treatment system adequate for the <br /> expanded volume from 10 acres to 200 acres.. <br /> The requested twenty-fold increase in acreage from 10 acres to 206 acres has no limitation on the nature of the <br /> underground mining,the volume of toxic chemicals to be used,the expanded volume of ore or waste rock to be <br /> removed, nor the volume of water treatment necessary.The applicant expects up to 70,000 tons per year,with <br /> no intermittent production periods,with a minimum of 35,000 tons per year. <br /> It is impossible to issue a permit without advance knowledge of the proposed level of discharge.The agency <br /> must evaluate the ability of this water system to handle future activity. It is impossible for the Agency to grant a <br /> permit on reliance of issuing a cease and desist in event of a violation.The water treatment system relies upon <br /> the containment and storage of water, both surface and underground.What assurances are there that this <br /> stored water will be safe and not contaminated.Applicant represents data that the waste rock will be stable and <br /> not lead to any toxic run-off.This should be independently evaluated given the indefinite time frame for its <br /> existence. <br /> Relying on representations of the applicant is ill-advised.The initial application was with 11 items of <br /> Incompleteness, including a bounced check.The permit states that the future land use will be forestry,and the <br /> present land use is industrial/commercial.Actually,the current land use of the expanded area is undisturbed <br /> land and forestry,and the future land use will be postindustrial wasteland.The applicant's lack of credibility <br /> should also give pause to consider the skill and experience and motivations of the operators.The operator has <br /> signed off on environmental and land conditions from its office in New York! <br /> Past violations do not in themselves create a barrier to the application receiving a permit. However, its prior <br /> conduct certainly bears on its credibility for trustworthiness,lack of candor,and ability to operate at the level <br /> being sought. Prior violations include their deliberate failure to file pollutant reports while in known violation. <br /> Prior violations include their deliberate misrepresentation of corrective actions during the review process,only <br /> discovered upon inspection by the Agency.The prior violations involved representations by the applicant of new <br /> technology that in fact was inadequate or non-functional.The operator's position and attitude at the time of prior <br /> violations was that the pollution of the watershed is an acceptable risk of its operation.The applicant's position <br /> during prior violations was that the standards set by WQCD were so strict that they were justified in violating <br /> them and should be excused for doing so. <br /> Regular monitoring of mine operations by independent inspectors must be a requirement,at the cost of the <br /> operator. <br /> Thank you for considering these comments. Please also consider that the comment period is too short,given <br /> the complicated nature of the evaluation and the limited notice to the public through newspaper postings,that <br /> largely go unnoticed. <br />