REV04433 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

iii iiiiiiiiiiiu iii May 8, 2000 Mr. Berhan Keffelew Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology (DMG) 1313 Sherman St., Room 215 Denver. CO 80203 Re: Objection to "Cripple Creek & Victor Gold Mining Company", Amendment #8 Dear Mr. Keffetew: r+a~ l -; 2000 ,;;carols ~ Georogy This document is apersonal submittal of my objection to the Application for Amendment #8 to Permit #M~0-244 submitted on or about March 24, 2000, by the Cripple Creek & Victor Gold Mining Company (CCBV)/AngloGold. The following issues are raised in objection to the approval of the Application by the Division of Minerals and Geology/Office of Mined Land Reclamation (DMG) and/or the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board (MLRB). I reserve my right to submit additional comments, issues, and evidence in the future and in response to any future submittals by CC&V or any other party, other objections to (or support of) the Application, any documents in the possession of or communications generated by the DMG, and any other relevant material. The Amendment Application violates provisions of the Colorado Mined Land Reclam- ation Act, MLRB Rules, and DMG policy, and as such, cannot be legally approved by the DMG/MLRB. Under Colorado law, the burden of proof squarely rests upon CCBV to prove that each and every legal requirement has been met. 'The proponent of an order shall have the burden of proof...." CRS 24~-105(7). The Mined Land Act sperifcally requires the applicant to "demonstrate compliance" with all requirements, including all MLRB Rules, CRS 34-32-115(4). The Application for Amendment #8 fails to meet these tests. The approach used by CCBV in Amendment 8, by not fully describing leachpad material off-loading, washinglrinsing, and associated relocation procedures, does not constitute a fully complete - or legal -approach in Amendment submission. The proposed approach of Amendment 6 is that neither the DMG, nor the general ublic, will have any front~nd information on what will be the final efforts in off-loading, washing/rinsing, and relocating hazardous materials. The Application fails to comply with the Mined Land Act and MLRB Rules, MLRB Rule 6 (Rule 6.4.20 in particular). Rule 6, and the Mined Land Act, requires the submission of a complete EPP for a Designated Mining Operation (DMO). CC&V violates Rule 6.4.20's requirements for detailed facility, materials handling, geochemical, water quality, reclamation, environmental protection, and other analysis and performance assurances. Rule 7 requires that all of the requirements in Rule 6 for DMO must be met before the DMG/MLRB can approve the Amendment. CCBV requests in the Amendment that the OMLR/MLRB approve the concept of unloading the VLF to lined area(s), recognizing that additional details in the form of a technical revision will be submitted for final approval. CCBV is thus requesting future technical revision(s) to circumvent full specification - to the public -at this point in time - for a process that is risky at hest! This does NOT, however, replace the legal requirement the Amendment comply with MLRB Rules and the Mined Land Ad. Further, CC&V must assure that all facilities are reclaimed, CRS 34-32-112(3), yet it is impossible to determine the reclamation requirements of facilities until the DMG/MLRB and the public have seen the specifications for these facilities. CC&V's proposal to submit these critical facilities under the auspices of a technical revision totally undermines the public participation requirements of the Mined Land Act and Rules. Under MLRB Rules, technical revisions are not ublicl noticed and greatly reduce opportunities for public review and objection. That is unacceptable for such a risky undertaking.