GENERAL39703 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3) Reversal of the DMO Findings Would Violate the MLRA The Mined Land Reclamation Act ("MLRA") unambiguously defines a DMO very broadly. "Designated mining operation" means a mining operation at which: (I) Toxic or acidic chemicals used in extractive metallurgical processing are present on-site; or (II) Acid- or toxic-forming materials will be exposed or disturbed as a result of mining operations. C.R.S. § 34-32-103(3.5)(a). Thus, the DMO threshold is the mere exposure of disturbance of any "acid or toxic-forming materials." Therefore, the DMO inquiry is complete once the DMG finds exposed or disturbed toxic or acid forming materials. Although an applicant may challenge the DMG's determination, this finding has not changed nor been challenged in this matter. The DMG's July 25, 2005 Notice of Determination clearly states that JD-6, JD-8 and JD-9 mines meet the criteria for a DMO. The July 25, 2005 DMG determination was based on recently conducted Synthetic Precipitate Leachate Procedure ("SPLP") tests on waste rock and ore samples from the SM-18 Mine. The July 25, 2005 DMO Determination was also based on numerous DMG inspections of operational conditions conducted in early 2005 that analyzed surface conditions, restart conditions, and actual mining operations. The SPLP tests and site investigations confirmed the presence, exposure, and disturbance of toxic and acid forming materials at the mines that could adversely affect human health, property and the environment. At that point, the DMO standard was unambiguously satisfied. C.R.S. § 34-32- 103(3.5)(a)(II),C.R.S. § 34-32-112.5(2). Intervenors intend to argue that any subsequent analysis was unnecessary and that reversal of these finding would be contrary to law. Intervenors also intend to respond to factual and legal arguments that Cotter Corporation may make in its effort to reverse the DMO determinations. Conclusion Intervenors respectfully submit that this request sufficiently demonstrates the entitlement to participate as parties in this matter. Should the Board accept Cotter's cursory appeal for consideration by the Board, we look forward to fully explicating and detailing the positions concisely set forth herein, as well as any issues that Cotter maybe allowed to raise. s/Travis E. Stills Travis E. Stills Managing Attorney Energy Minerals Law Center cc: Jeff Parsons, Senior Attorney, Western Mining Action Project, Attorneys for Appellants cc: Cheryl Linden, Assistant Attomey General (cheryl.linden@state.co.us)