ENFORCE37184 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• rii~i~l9., ~'iarch 25-2n, iQQ2 7 i~ ~ ~\ is SuSiec, To 8car~ ~~prcval 31 Staff said the civil penalty recommended was calculated for 123 days, from the initial inspection in November of 1941 to the current Board Meeting, at a rate of 8190 per day or 523,370. Mr. John Henderson, an attorney representing Gold Hi11 and Mr. Mark Steen, explained that the parties involved were previously a business entity working to develop the mine and the mill. He said that several years ago the title to the land underlying the mill building was severed and transferred to (the Fraser interest) COM, Inc. Mr. Henderson said that since that time, the mill has been owned by COM, Inc. Mr Henderson said a contract was established about a year aqo which allows ores from the Gold Hill properties to be processed at the Cash Miii. He noted that significant disagreements exist between the co-permittees. Mr. Henderson further stated that the current violations are for activities that occurred at the mill and that they were caused entirely by COM, Inc. He said Gold Hill has no control over the activities conducted by COM, Inc. Mr. James S. Munn, an attorney representing COM, Inc. and Homestate, Inc., the contract-operator of the mill, said COM, Inc. had submitted a report to the Division summarizing the history of the site as it relates to the co-permittees. He referenced the Division's synopsis and stated that during the January 13, 1992 meeting with the Division, COM, Inc. stated that they do have an interest in the Buono Mine which was acquired through a lease option purchase arrangement from Energetics, Inc. Mr. Munn discussed some of the history pertaining to relationship of the co-permittees. He said a priority milling agreement exists between COM, Inc. and Mi Vida Enterprises who he said was the property owner in this matter, rather than Gold Hill. Mr. Munn said that the agreement contemplated processing ores from properties other that Gold Hill. The Board noted that the issue in the matter relates to the interpretation of the permit covering the mill. The permit requires that the mill not accept or process third-party ore and that only ore from Goid Hill properties would be processed on that site. Mr. Munn said that CCM, Inc. believed that its activity was Covered by a permit issued on August 1, 1985. He said that it was understood that the Cash Mine was not active and no ore would be produced from that site. However, he said the Cash Mill was permitted for activity, and therefore, CDM, Inc. believed the agreement allowed processing of ore from other sources. Board Member Stewart explained that the concerns of the Division relate to ensuring that the operators provide oversight, compliance and reclamation of the site. She said the company to whom the original mining permit was issued mould be considered the entity responsible for ±he violation. The ronsensus of the Board and Division was that any ;:~ntracts or agreement, tnvoiving the co-permittees were not under the „~~: ,~i,.-i ,R oT zee ?car.;.