PERMFILE110865 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

General Chemical respectfully disagrees. As General Chemical has already described in pages 2 through 5 of its letter of May 17, 1999, there are specific statutory requirements which govern the authority of the DMG. These requirements are not subject to waiver by agreement with federal agencies. Likewise, broad agreement on a definition of the Monitoring Plan cannot change the time when the program must be completed. Under Colorado law, the omissions must be cured before the reclamation permit can be granted. Based on Comment 14 of the Division's Second Adequacy Letter of May 23, 1999, General Chemical understands that the DMG believes that delay in acquisition of baseline data may nonetheless be authorized under a viable statutory distinction which draws some sort of line at commencement of commercial operations. In Comment 14, the DMG does so in a firm manner, by directing American Soda's attention to a positio^ that the application prohibits injection of solution mining fluids into new production wells until the 13-month water quality characterization period is completed. Still, "commercial operations" is not a term found in either the statute or the pertinent mineral rules and regulations; as such, it is at best ambiguous, and at worst, contrary to law. Moreover, the absence of any specific regulatory defuution of the commercial operations, in conjunction with the appazent absence of a clear understanding between American Soda and DMG as to what activities cross the line into commercial operations, is an independent reason to deny the permit application, The establishment and enforcement of regulatory standards is complicated enough for any mining operation which is both novel and complex. Neither public nor private interest is well served when an applicant insists on the creation of a regulatory program adapted to its own needs. It foreshadows difficult enforcement issues when the inevitable moment comes at which American Soda begins to seek incremental modifications to a solution mining process which is still experimental on a commercial scale. While it appears that American Soda would prefer to have its regulatory program negotiated as its mining operations evolve, this is contrary to the letter of the Colorado statute. Comment 14 of the Second Adequacy Letter also implicitly addresses the uncomfortable fact that, under the statutory definitions, the existing pilot plant itself is a mining operation. It is an activity cleazly identified as a development [C.R.S. § 32-34-103(4)] activity included within mining operations [C. R.S. § 32-34 103(8)]. Whether or not the pilot plant should have been allowed to proceed as a prospecting venture, without securing a reclamation permit, is beside the point. The question is whether the existence of the pilot plant now excuses the current absence of baseline data which cannot be procured until the Monitoring Plan, or some monitoring plan, is complete. Surely not. Any other prospector which applied for a reclamation permit to operate a commercial solution mining venture would be obliged to secure the data first, before commencing any development activity. Rule 5 does not authorize the Division to waive its other Rules when a prospecting venture is successful. There aze sound public policy reasons for the statute's insistence that a reclamation permit cannot be granted until after baseline data is collected up front. One public policy is