Laserfiche WebLink
Rationale-Recomnxendation for Approua[ <br />July 26, 2000 Page 3 <br />It should be noted [hat under the Amendment No. 7 approval, the MLR BOARD required the operator to <br />reevaluate its blasting and monitoring plan for its effectiveness in protecting structures in the town of Victor. <br />The operator was also required to submit the reevaluation to the Office and all the Parties to the matter in <br />order to clarify the sufficiency of the plan. The reevaluation was provided to the Division and the Parties to <br />the Amendment No. 7 as required. On March 24, 1999, after notice to all parties, the matter was brought <br />before [he Mined Land Reclamation Board as a discussion item. However, not all Parties attended the <br />hearing. The Division explained to the Board that the existing blasting and monitoring plan was adequate <br />and is in accordance with the Board approved permit for the site. At that hearing, the Board found the plan to <br />be sufficient. The reevaluation of the blasting and monitoring was conducted by CC&V in consultation with <br />a third party. Matheson Engineering of Goder was the third party engineering firm that was the consultant to <br />the operator. They were also present to answer questions at the hearing. <br />2. Off loading and detoxification without the appropriate engineering design should not be allowed. (J. <br />Minkler, J. Berman, J. T. Cobb, E. C. Mangold, R. M. Raub, D. Johnson, A. Weiland. D. D. Page, K. <br />Hughes, Ivlineral Policy Center, D. M. Kayser, E. E. Hanson, R. Flynh (CFV), A. Dallasundis, J. <br />Pouliter) <br />DMG Response: )n its permit amendment application, CC&V states it is possible it may off load ore <br />and detoxify it. The operator has provided a proposed location and reclamation plan. The proposed <br />reclamation plan for detoxification and final land use are the same as provided in Amendment No. 7. The <br />Financial warranty calculations include the cost to detoxify and reclaim any off loaded ore. <br />The Division will not approve off loading and detoxification of ore without specific engineering designs and <br />specifications being submitted and approved through a technical revision (TR) process. <br />3. Was there ever any resolution with the State Historical Society during Amendments No. 6 and 7? What <br />was the outcome? (M. Fay) <br />DMG Response: As in Amendments No. 6 & 7, the Division contacted the State Historical Society and <br />their cotrunents were forwarded to CC&V. It is the understanding of the Division that issues raised under <br />Amendments No. 6 & 7 by SHPO have been addressed. The operator did not propose any activity on <br />publicly owned lands under Amendment No. 8. Should the permittee propose to use these lands in the <br />future, the permittee must submit a revision for DMG approval of such activities. <br />4. Noise pollution from blasting and operation. (M. Fay, R. Fay, R. Flynn, F. & K. Culvert) <br />DMG Response: The issue is outside of the Division's jurisdiction. The County sets standards for noise <br />levels. <br />DMG should make any approval of this Amendment No. 8 contingent upon citizen's approval of the <br />cyanide initiative. (D. D. Page) <br />DMG Response: The Division evaluates an amendment application when submitted in accordance with <br />the Mined Land Rules and Regulations and the Act in effect at that time. When to submit an application to <br />amend an existing permit is up to the permittee. However, if the amended application that is submitted <br />meets the requirements of the Mined Land Reclamation Board Rules and the Act, [he Division has to review <br />the application and render a decision within the allowable time limit for the application or [he amended <br />application is approved automatically without comments. See Rule 1.4.11(3) of the Hard RocklMetal <br />Mining Rules and Regulations. <br />