Laserfiche WebLink
Members of CEC, SJCA, and INFORM regularly use and enjoy the lands at and encompassing <br />the JD-6, JD-8, and JD-9 mines and the nearby waters for recreational, aesthetic and similar <br />purposes. These members are concerned with protecting wildlife, scenery, water quality, quality <br />of life, human health, and other values that are and will be impacted by the operation of the <br />mines. Should any of the JD-6, JD-8, or JD-9 mines not be treated as a DMO, CEC, SJCA, <br />INFORM, and their members' interests would be adversely affected and impaired by the DMG <br />applying a less rigorous substantive and procedural environmental and reclamation review to <br />these mines. Such anon-DMO determination would also deprive these organizations and their <br />members of critical information with respect to how these mines will treat and protect the natural <br />and human resources in the area. <br />As a result, each intervenor organization has a legal interest in the lawful regulation of the JD <br />Mine Complex in accordance with the protections set out by the DMO status. These uranium <br />mines have a problematic history ofnon-compliance and problems that require fully informed <br />and transparent regulatory decisions. Intervenors intend to participate in the additional <br />procedural opportunities that aze provided by the heightened regulatory standards for mines with <br />DMO status. <br />Therefore, Intervenors are entitled, as a matter of law, to participate as parties in the Cotter <br />appeal, and now set forth a statement of facts that support their positions. <br />Statement of Facts and Positions <br />Intervenors seek party status to forward three basic positions: 1) the DMG finding must be <br />/ upheld and the interests in the regulatory oversight provided by DMO status maintained; 2) the <br />l Cotter appeal cannot be set for a formal Board hearing since it fails to list and explain the issues <br />it seeks the Board to consider in requesting the relief sought by the appeal; and, 3) reversing the <br />DMO finding would violate the MLRA. <br />1) DMO Status Provides Protection for the Interests of Intervenors <br />First, intervention is sought to protect the interests of the organizations and their members in the <br />proper regulation of these mines as DMOs. Proposed intervenors have interests in the increased <br />procedural protections to recreation, aesthetics, human health, and environmental that the 1993 <br />amendments to the Mined Land Reclamation Act provided in creating Designated Mining <br />Operation status. <br />Intervenors rely upon evidence from the mine file to support its intervention. The administrative <br />record built by the DMG supports the DMO status determination. However, as alleged in the <br />SM-18 Mine DMO status appeal, there is some possibility that the DMG will be persuaded by <br />the operator to ignore or take action in contradiction to applicable laws or evidence contained in <br />the file. Intervenors seek to demonstrate, as is common practice in an Administrative Procedures <br />Act case, that the DMG's initial findings of DMO status for the JD-6, JD-8, and JD-9 mines are <br />correct and cannot be legally changed. Based on the reversal of position in the pending SM-18 <br />appeal, it is foreseeable that proposed intervenors may diverge from the DMG on matters of <br />evidence and legal argument. <br />4 <br />