Laserfiche WebLink
2) Sewer effluent was illegallydumped on the property some yeazs ago. <br />Response: Inspection report from September of 2000, September of 2003 and October of 2006 do <br />not note any activifies on site that suggest such activities. The September 2007 inspection which <br />focused in part on this concern could find no evidence such as staining, odor or materials that <br />indicate the dumping of sewage occurred. The first mention of this issue was in 2001 but there was <br />never a written complaint to the Division. Inspections did not note such activities on or nearby in <br />the previous 3 inspections. It was noted in a telephone conversation that asample ofwater /sludge <br />was taken from the creek. The exact location is unknown by the Division but site observations note <br />the creek is approximately a half a mile away from the permit area. Drainage at the pit is designed <br />for zero stormwater runoff Drainage from around the pit area is collected into a retention pond on <br />private property for which no similar complaint has been lodged. The Solid Waste Division of <br />CDPHE may have jurisdiction for such an issue. At this time, the DRMS has no evidence of the <br />alleged event. <br />3) Petroleum a~halt refuse was processed and dumped on the property. <br />Response: The DRMS noted some evidence of asphalt in 2003 within the pit area. The quantity was <br />less than a cubic yard. Also, during the most recent inspection asphalt was noted as part of fill for a <br />project outside the permit area and unrelated to the mining activities. This also was a very minor <br />amount of less than a cubic yard. The Division allows asphalt to be used as inert fill material as long <br />as it is at least 60 days old. The asphalt observed on both occasions was small in quantity, old and <br />considered inert material. The site is a high and dry mine with minimal contact with ground or <br />surface water and these small amounts were deemed not a problem. As for the processing of such <br />materials the Division has never observed such activities within the permit boundaries and cannot <br />confirm that they did or did not occur. Therefore the Division finds the permit holder and the permit <br />azea are in compliance with the Act and Rules. <br />4) Possible radioactive materials were excavated from a City of Gunnison street proiect and <br />deposited at the mine site. <br />Response: The Division inspection notes no materials have been imported into the mine permit azea. <br />Some materials were brought into the adjacent lands owned by the operator. The material brought in <br />was from a project at the local college and not from the City project according to the operator. <br />Regardless, the inspector did not observe any materials consistent with mine tailings of any kind on <br />or off site. This observation coupled with the CDPHE report which included the use of radiation <br />measuring devices found no evidence of any radioactive materials on site or the adjacent lands. <br />At this time the operator is in compliance with the approved reclamation permit. A copy of this letter <br />and report is being forwarded to the Solid Waste Department and Environmental Protection Agency at <br />their request. Further action in the matter will be at their discretion but the matter appears to be closed <br />as far as the Division is concerned. <br />