GENERAL33904 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

exemption were not even addressed -even assuming the Board would accept Cotter's invitation to read the MLRA in a manner that allowed for DMO exemptions for 112 operations. In sum, neither the procedural nor the substantive requirements for the Board to grant DMO exemption have been met. VI. THE MLRB REGULATIONS PREVENT DMO EXEMPTIONS FOR THIS 112 OPERATION As set forth more fully in Appellants Opening Brief, pursuant to the plain language of the applicable MLRB rules, if a mining operation is permitted as a 110 Operation, a Rule 1.1(14)(e) exemption to DMO status maybe considered by the Board. Appellants' Opening Brief at 12. However, the Board has correctly determined in its September 13, 2006 Order that the SM-18 is a 112 Operation, and therefore is not eligible for Rule 1.1(14)(e) exemption. Thus, the dispute over this matter is purely hypothetical since no 110 Operation is currently before the Board for consideration. There is a live dispute over the question of whether or not a mine permitted as a 112 operation may obtain DMO-but-Exempt status. Cotter and DRMS do not identify any explicit provision in the MLRB rules fora 112 Operation to qualify for such a DMO-exemption. No such explicit provision exists in the MLRB rules. Lacking any support in the MLRB Rules, Cotter and DRMS rely entirely on a novel argument based on the silence in the MLRB Rules and the language of the MLRA to argue that 112 Operations can obtain DMO-but-Exempt Status from this Board by raising the issue at any time, in any Board proceeding, including the late stages of the present appeal. Cotter Response at 9-10 (arguing for DMO exemption). Had the MLRB interpretation of the MLRA included a determination that 112 Operations could be eligible for exempt status, a process similar to that set out for 110 Operations would have been set forth for 112 Operations to gain a DMO-but-Exempt status. None was provided in the MLRB rules. Regardless of any ambiguity that maybe read into the MLRB Rules, as set forth above, Cotter has not satisfied the two statutory elements by providing any information regazding the "quantities" of materials nor whether these quantities of toxic and acid forming materials are sufficient to "adversely affect any person, any property, or the environment." C.R.S. § 34-32- 112.5(2). Even. assuming, arguendo, that an exemption is available, Cotter has not shown any facts to establish eligibility under the statutory provision it relies upon. Cotter Response Brief at 9-10. Based on application of the appropriate legal standards, the SM-18 Mine is properly recognized as a DMO in accordance with the unambiguous and plain language of MLRB's HRMM Rules and the Long-standing interpretation that the DMO-Exemption in the MLRA is only available to