Laserfiche WebLink
<br />requirement of the performance standards, and we <br />would not be able to release their bond without <br />such a demonstration. And, it's our view that <br />that demonstration can't be made without <br />groundwater sampling and characterization of the <br />potentially affected groundwater in the area. In <br />addition, Rule 3.1. ...this is the lengthy Rule <br />that Al mentioned in his presentation <br />...3.1.7(3)(b)(ii)(a) requires the Office to <br />notify operators of evidence and the possible need <br />to modify the permit to include permit conditions <br />protective of groundwater. What that Rule says is <br />that the Office shall send a notification to <br />operators and, because of that wording, it doesn't <br />give the Office the ability to...when we believe <br />that there's evidence of potential groundwater <br />contamination at a site, it doesn't give us the <br />option to determine 'well this site is far along <br />in their reclamation plan, they haven't mined in a <br />number of years, so, we just won't do it at this <br />site'. That...3.1.7 doesn't allow us to do that. <br />We shall notify operators that we believe that <br />they have had the potential at their site to <br />affect groundwater. <br />Like I said, I have a...the Division is prepared <br />to defend, and Homestake Mining Company went into <br />this issue in their presentation, is there indeed <br />15 <br />