GENERAL33979 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The appellant notes that there was no public notice on the review of the SM-18 Mine DMO status other than the publishing of the decision in the Board minutes. Rule 7.2.2 requires no other notices other than posting notice of DMO status decisions in the Board minutes, and DRMS complied with this notice requirement. The appellant requests that the Board suspend the permit and prohibit activities on site until Cotter submits and gains Board approval of an Enviromnental Protection Plan ("EPP"). Should the Board determine that DRMS is in error, this request is contrary to Rule 7.2.3(2)(a) which provides the permit holder 60 days to demonstrate that the elements of an EPP are already in place, and Rule 7.2.3(2)(b) which affords the permit holder 180 days to submit a full plan for Division approval. Moreover, the request for no activity on site is inconsequential as the mine is on stand-by status and is not currently operating. The appellant refers to issues which are either factually incorrect or are non-jurisdictional to DRMS. First, the claim that Cotter does not have a current lease with the Deparhnent of Energy ("DOE") is misleading. DOE refutes this alleged lease issue. Staff discussions with DOE note the ten year lease signed in 1996 and terminated in 2006. The lease, however, was extended by ten months so DOE could complete a Programmatic Environmental Impact Assessment and there have been two additional six month extensions of the lease since, which means the lease has not expired. The National Environmental Protection Act ("NEPA") is referenced through out the appellant's document. Also mentioned is the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"). NEPA and ESA requirements are administered through the federal agency that has oversight of the lands in question. In this case the DOE. DRMS has no jurisdiction to enforce the NEPA or ESA requirements. However, the MLRB and DRMS may impose permit conditions to mitigate potential impacts to threatened and endangered species. See §§ 34-32-102 and 116.5(6), C.R.S.; 2 CCR 407-1, Rule 3.1.8. The appellant claims health concerns for mine workers and recreational users of active and abandoned mines. Today the Mine Safety Health Administration ("MSHA") heavily regulates exposures and other health risk to these workers and the DRMS has no jurisdiction in the regulation or enforcement of such issues. Radon emissions from old mines and current mining activities are cited by the appellant. DRMS has no jurisdiction to regulate air emissions. Abandoned mine work addresses old mine emissions. The Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment's ("CDPHE") Air Quality Contro] Division issues all air emissions permits and regulates radon emissions. The appellant refers to DRMS inspections of the SM-18 Mine from April of 2005 to the present. Several inaccuracies are stated which need to be ciarified. Appellant cites purported DRMS inspection reports that note oil spills, leaking pipes, deterioration of pond liners, lack of berms around stockpiles and a build up of contamination from prolonged use of ore storage areas at the SM-18 Mine. A review of all previous inspections for the SM-18 reveals no reference to leaking pipes, deteriorating pond liners or a build up of contamination. These issues are noted at other Cotter sites in inspection reports not related to the SM-18 Mine. The appellant confuses four separate sites in its generalization of the reports. The issues of concern noted at the SM-18 Mine are issues of general maintenance and did not constitute major problems as the appellant would have the Board believe. Cotter complied with corrective actions in a timely manner and to DRMS satisfaction. No Notices of Violation were issued.