GENERAL33979

• Permit No: M1978116
• IBM Index Class Name: General Documents
• Doc Date: 8/29/2007
• Doc Name: Appeal of non-designated mining status
• From: DRMS
• To: Various
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF RECLAMATION, MINING AND SAFETY (/ /' A

Department of Natural Resources M
w K

1313 Sherman St., Room 215 q
~ /~ I /~ ~ ~/

Denver, Colorado 80203 C O L O RA D O

Phone: [phone]
- ~ _ ~ ,
'
~` " o I v I s t o N o r

RECLAMATION
FAX: [phone] t
--
~ q. -
~,_;~~
~
._.; ,
~ / MINING
,
,
, ,
- / /
S=' - 2007 J SAFETY

Division or.jdl:3n?C(~Bfl
' ~
~~ ~
~i7~t,`
Bill Owens
(
:~f `In0 2nd Fg`y ~r Governor
Russell George
~~ Executive Director
Division of Reclamation Jailning and Safety ~ROnald W. Cattany
Response to Appellant's Brief concernin~rtGe Appeal of // Division Director
Non-Designated Mining Status for the SM-18 Mine Permit No M-1978-1.Namral Resource Trustee
On March 6, 2006 the Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety ("DRMS") posted in the
April 2006 Mined Land Reclamation Board ("MLRB" or "Board") minutes a finding that the SM-18
was exempt from Designated Mining Operation ("DMO") statue The exemption was granted under
Rule 7.2.6 (1) due to the review of information and data provided by Cotter Corporation ("Cotter") that
demonstrated that there was no potential for quantities of contaminates identified in waste and ore rocks
to adversely affect human health, property or the environment. The appellant, the Energy Minerals Law
Center ("EMLC") asserts that the exemption is in error and has appealed the decision to the Board. On
August 15, 2007 the EMLC issued a brief in support of and requesting that the Board overhrrn the
exemption from DMO status for the SM-18 Mine, operated by Cotter. DRMS staff after review of the
appellant's brief issue the following response.
The appellant incorrectly states that an exemption to the DMO standards are only afforded to 110
operations and are not applicable to a 112 operation such as the SM-18 Mine. The appellant refers to
Rule 1.1 (14)(e) which grants 110 permit holders who do not use or store designated chemicals
exemption from DMO requirements unless they have the potential to produce acid mine drainage in
sufficient quantities to affect any person, property or the environment. Rule 1.1(14)(e) does not
specifically reference any requirements fora 112 permit. This exclusion cannot be reasonably
interpreted as either excluding or providing exemption fora 112 permit. Moreover, Rule 7, which sets
forth the specific DMO regulations, and the statute upon which Rule 7 is based, C.R.S. 34-32-112.5, do
not exclude 112 operations from DMO exemption if they meet certain exemption criteria. The statute
states that when the exemption criteria are met, "the board shall exempt such operations whether
conducted pursuant to Section 34-32-110 or otherwise." Likewise, Rule 7.2.6 provides that as long as an
operator or applicant can demonstrate that the exemption criteria is met, the Board shall exempt the
operation from Rule 7 DMO requirements. Rule 7.2.6 does not state that it only applies to 110
operations -rather; it states that "such" operations (those that meet the listed exemption criteria) will be
exempted by the Board.
Through geo-modeling and other data Cotter demonstrated to DRMS that there was no potential
for contaminates in waste or ore rock to reach ground waters. Other on-site measures further controlled
any reasonable surface water impacts to the point that there exists little or no chance to adversely affect
human health, property or the environment. Based on Cotter's demonstration, pursuant to Rule 7.2.6 (1),
the Division issued an exemption to DMO regulations.
Office of Office of
Mined Land Reclamation Ac[ive and Inactive Mines