Laserfiche WebLink
05i10i00 14:49 LAND & WRTER FIJND OF THE ROCKIES ~ 3038328106 N0.853 D04 <br />Under MLRB Rule 6.4.20 (10) Surface Water Control and Containment Facilities Information, <br />CC&V must: <br />(a} Provide design specifications certified by a licensed professional engineer for all <br />Environmental Protection Facilities intended to: <br />(i) hold, convey. contain, or transport designated chemicals used in the <br />extractive metallurgical process. <br />Under Rule 6.4.20(15) Cottstruction Schedule Information, DMG/MLRB cannot approve the <br />Amendment until CC&V: "provide[s] a detailed schedule for ... all facilities designed to contain. <br />or transport toxic or acid-forming materials or designated chemicals used in the extractive <br />metallurgical process...." )n this case, CC&V has not submitted any specific plans for the <br />detoxificationlrinsing facilities, let alone a detailed consh~tction schedule. <br />Rule 6.4.20 also requires CC&V to: <br />(1) "demonstrate that containment facilities shall be of adequate size to provide sufficient <br />reserve capacity ...." b.4.20(7xf); <br />(2) "Provide an evaluation of the expected effectiveness of each proposed and existing <br />EPF, taking into consideration: (a) site-specific wnditions...." 6.4.20(7xa); <br />and <br />(3) "Describe, with maps and narrative, [he monitoring systems, [and] monitoring site <br />locations, ...." 6,4.20(7)(d). ' <br />This is only a subset of the entire Rules requirements for EPFs. For example, CC&V must also <br />assure that all facilities are reclaimed, CRS 34-32-t 12(3). However, it is impossible to <br />detetntine the reclamation requirements of facilities until the DMG/IviLRB and the public have <br />seen the specifications for these facili[ies. <br />In this case, although CC&V admits that the spent-ore detoxificatiotJrinsing facilities are needed <br />for Amendment 8 operations, it failed to submit any specific plans, designs, or other site-specific <br />information. The company relies on vague assurances that these new facilities will be as <br />protective as it claims the VLF will be. Vol. I at p. 75. Such generrdized discussions fail to meet <br />the strict submittal requiremcnu for EPFs. <br />In addition, CCBtV's proposal to submit designs and plans for these critical facilities under the <br />auspices of a technical revision seriously undermines the public participation requirements of the <br />Mined Land Act end Rules. Under MLRB Rules, technical revisions are not publicly noticed and <br />have greatly reduced oppomutities foe public review and objection. <br />The DMG/MI.RB must reject Amendment 8 as proposed with this critical shortcoming. When <br />CC&V determines where these EPFs will be, how many there will be, their design and <br />performance specifications; etc., tben it can apply for as amendment of any current <br />