My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL51034
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL51034
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:37:27 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 6:27:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1983141
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
3/23/1992
From
EVAN FREIRICH
To
MLRD
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
creek most of the Summer and Fall. It has <br />tended to flow in the mornings while being <br />` dry in the afternoons. This would tend to <br />rule out natural drainage. <br />Since, my neighbors and I complained of the large volumes of <br />unexplained water, we learned that the explanation was that the <br />mine was pumping directly into the creek (from Mr. Tatman). <br />Since that time, there have been several inspections of the <br />mine site and you have noted consistent and continuous <br />violations. Among these violations have been problems with the <br />liner and off-site ore processing. These are problems we brought <br />to the attention of Ms. Fraser and Mr. Tatman even before you had <br />your inspections. The violations concerning runoff also <br />concern me because of the water quality problems. <br />Because Mr. Steen and Com Inc. (Homestate) are co-permittees <br />resolution of these violations have been very difficult. They <br />simply do not get along and therefore inaction results. I do not <br />believe that MLRB should be put in the position of mediating the <br />dispute between these unwilling partners. I recommend their <br />permit be revoked since the ownership of the mine and mill is no <br />longer held in the one entity you originally permitted. <br />The hardship this will impose on the parties is that they <br />will simply have to apply for a permit under their own name. <br />They should then be able to assume full responsibility for their <br />own actions. <br />Because Com, Inc. at this point has no choice but to use the <br />mill for milling ore from off-site sources, they should be <br />required to get a permit from the Colorado Department of Health. <br />I want to stress that the initial violation which caused <br />these inspections was the unpermitted direct discharge of <br />untreated and potentially hazardous water into a local water <br />supply. My well for instance is 13 feet deep and was within 40 <br />feet of the runoff. Mr. Steen knows this, he also knows that <br />this action was a violation of his permit. <br />The only rational course is to revoke the current permit and <br />force both parties to apply for new permits which are more <br />suitable to their current business configuration. <br />Sincerely, <br />Evan Freirich <br />cc: Gold Hill Town Meeting, Inc. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.