My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE20261
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE20261
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:24:30 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 9:45:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1983141
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
6/24/1992
Doc Name
MINUTES
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.
/
8
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
Min ~e 24-2 2 ~~~ 26 <br />t1teS' ~t1 5, ~ Subject To Board Approv~i <br />In response to an inquiry from the Board, Staff said that if a milling <br />operation is connected to a specific mine or set of mines that an <br />identified company owns and this is addressed in the permit so that the <br />Division knows the characteristics of the ore going into the tailings <br />pile, this is considered a captive mill operation. Staff said if the <br />mill purchases material under contract, this is considered a custom <br />mill which goes through a permitting process with the Department of <br />Health. However, Staff said that in this case, the Division believed <br />that the Bueno Mine was not owned by the company that had the permit <br />and that Bueno Mine was not a permitted site. Staff said the <br />operators' permit was not amended to include ore from the Bueno Mine. <br />Mr. Wayne Tatman, of COM, Inc., addressed the Board and discussed the <br />issue of the ore processed at the Cash Mill. The Board discussed this <br />matter in detail with the Division and the operator. <br />Mr. Bob Mason, representing Gold Hill Town Meeting, Inc., stated that <br />at the time of permitting, the community believed and agreed that the <br />mill site would be used to mill ore from Gold Hill Ventures properties <br />only. He also briefly discussed the issue of whether the current <br />permit is valid, because of the confusion regarding the companies' <br />names as co-permittees during the last succession of operator. <br />At this time, the Board restated and clarified the previous Motion. <br />It was MOVED that the Board continue the various petitions for <br />reconsideration to the August 1992 Board Meeting, direct the Attorney <br />General to investigate the legal question raised by Mr. Steen, <br />regarding the existence of the entities discussed or whether the <br />appropriate entity has been fined and to provide the Board with legal <br />advice on how to proceed, and, in conjunction with normal Board policy <br />and with the decision to hear this matter during the August Meeting, <br />order the operators to place the remainder of the civil penalty in <br />escrow within the next 20 days and, so long as the money is escrowed, <br />the Board will desist from any further collection efforts until after <br />the August Board Meeting. SECONDED. <br />In response to a question from the Board, Staff said that in order to <br />abate all violations the operators need to drill monitor holes and <br />implement the water pumping scheme. Staff said the operators have <br />obtained appropriate permits and are in the process of completing the <br />remaining abatement requirements. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.