GENERAL50388 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

II. THE DIVISION IMPROPERLY DETERMINED THAT THE JD-9 MINE SHOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS A DESIGNATED MINING OPERATION. COTTER'S SUBMISSIONS SUPPORT A FINAL DETERMINATION THAT THE MINE IS NOT A DMO. A. The Statutory and Reaulatory Provisions Support Cotter's Requests. The Act at C.R.S. 34-32-103(3.5)(a)(II) defines a "designated mining operation" as: "a mining operation at which acid- or toxic-forming materials will be exposed or disturbed as a result of mining operations." The Act at section 34-32-103(1) fiirther defines "acid or toxic producing materials" as "natural or reworked earth materials having acid or toxic chemical and physical characterisfics." The Division's January 17, 2006 review, after reciting the definition of "acid or toxic producing materials" contained at CRS 34-32-103(1), states: The Division considers toxic material, in this [Cotter's] context, to be any dissolved constitttent whose concentration exceeds applicable groundwater standards as defined in Regulation 41 - "The $asic Standards for Groundwater" -established by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission. While the ore and waste rock from the JD-6 urd JD-8 Mines have the potential to release metals in carcentrations that may exceed ground or surface water standards for certain constituents, the analysis does not stop there. The Act states at section 34-32-112.5(2): "If an operator demonstrates to the Board at the time of applying for a permit or at a subsequent hearing that acid- or toxic-producing materials will not be used, stored, or disturbed in 'All documents referred [o herein are contained in the adminishative record of these proceedings, and several are specifically attached to the Jnly 27, 2006 letter from the Division to each member of the Board which includes a copy of the "Division of Minerals and Geology, Designated Mining Operation Permit Stahis Review" for Cotter's perttvtted sites, inchtding the JD-9 Mine. For [he convenience of the Board and the parties, Cotter has provided copies of the materials enclosed with the Division's March 9, 2006 letter as Attachment A, and other documents referenced het~in as Attaclnnents B and C. 2