Laserfiche WebLink
quantities sufficient to adversely affect any person, any property or the environment, the <br />Board shall exempt such operations...." [Emphasis added.] See also Rule 7.2.6(1). <br />Therefore, as the Division states in its .Tune 15, 2005 review memorandum related <br />to the SM-18 Mine, on a site specific basis, depending on how the ore and waste rock are mined, <br />handled, or stored, "it may be feasible for operators to demonstrate that quantities of <br />released pollutants will be insufficient to adversely affect persons, property or the <br />environment." [See June 15, 2005 memorandum, Division of Minerals and Geology, addressed <br />to Harry Posey from Steve Shuey and Russ Means, titled, "SPLP Results Review: Cotter <br />Corporation SM-18 (Wright) Mine; M-1978-I I6," at page 2, emphasis added.] <br />B. The Mines Are DrV and Should Be Treated the Same as The SM-18 Mine. <br />The JD-6 and JD-8 Mines, like the SM-18 Mine, are dry mines. There is no need for <br />dewatering during operations. Importantly, Cotter submits that contatinants that could possibly <br />be released from the JD-6 and JD-8 Mines indeed will not be released in quantities sufficient to <br />require environmental protection facilities as the releases, if they occur, will not be "sufficient to <br />adversely affect any person, any property, or the environment." Cotter submits that the <br />determination related to the SM-18 Mine, recited immediately below, applies equally to the JD-6 <br />and JD-8 Mines: <br />The Division accepts that contaminants from waste rock piles or underground workings <br />within approximately one-half mile of the SM-18/Wright Mine dump would be <br />sufficiently diluted well before reaching the water table. The Division therefore should <br />no longer consider SM-18 Mine to be a Designed Mining Operation unless new evidence <br />justifies reconsideration ofthis conclusion. <br />C. The Division's Faulty Analysis is Premised on the Alleged Need for More Data. <br />The Division's March 6, 2006 memo to Russ Meuis identifies the reasoning for the <br />Division's determination for the JD-6 Mine where it states: <br />3 <br />