REP39094

• Permit No: C1981038
• IBM Index Class Name: Report
• Doc Date: 8/5/1994
• Doc Name: PN C-81-038 SUBSIDENCE MONITORING
• From: CYPRUS ORCHARD VALLEY
• To: DMG
• Permit Index Doc Type: SUBSIDENCE REPORT
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Mr. Kent Gorham
August 2, 1994
Page 2
of the affected area as required in accordance with lades 2.05.6 (6) (e) (i) (F) (III)
and (IV) based upon the mine plan as recently revised by permit revisiaar 03. It
should be noted that while the projected location of the affected area will
change in accordance with the revised mine plan, the degree and nature of
anticipated impacts remains consistent with the initial projections.
Secord, ODVOC hereby formally requests the Divisicrt to provide documentation
supportiryg the arrant interpretation that ponds {i.e. those with manmade
e~banimpntsj should be considered and i.rrvPntoried as stn~ctures order Earle
2.05.6(6) . Reference was made in our oorrversation to a Division memo ac'a-~sing
this issue. iris interpretation represents an apparent deviation fry the status
quo aryl therefa~re should be formally "r" r'-'+'~ aryl doaIInented. OCnICC cannot make
a de+cr,n; *+ation as to whether ~ not the new interpretation is reasonable without
having a clear and doam~ented irry~rckwtrrir~ of how it is supported by the
regulations and implemented by the Division. Flpcer receipt of the requested
docampntation, OOVOC will review all material provided and amend the permit as
necessary if appropriate.
Ztrisrl, with regard to the definition of "material damage", OOVOC is constrained
to interpret this phrase specifically as defined at Rule 2.05.6(6)(e)(ii)(A) and
(B) . Following a thorax~r review of the QgRB Fades, the Colorado S~sface Opal
Mining Reclamation Act, and the federal regulations, OOVOC finds rro other
applicable formal regulatory definition for this phrase. As we disaLS_sed at score
length, the interpretation of this phrase is key to the applicability of the
2.05.6(6) regulations. ODVOC widerstands the Division's position that a
definition other than that pr+~*+*~ in the regulations may be appropriate within
the context of these regulations. I-FOWever, OOVOC again respectfLrlly requests
this positi.o~n to be doamwsrted aryl farmalized. As an operatcrr, OOVCC is
constrained by very specific and detailed semantics within the regulations. To
ambiguously define this key phrase seems inconsistent with the regulatory process
established.
Insofar as the phrase "material damage" applies to the specific situation at
OOVOC, no mange order Section 2.05.6(6) (b) (i) in the permit application results
if the definition is oonstiiu~~ to mean urmutigated damage rather than iux+eparable
damage. In either irLStanoe, the affirmative ~-~^^;*+~tion order Rule
2.05.6(6) (bj (i) *~~*~ turhanged. ire regulation at Rule 2.05.6(6) {b) (ii)
calling far monitorirg in accordance with Rule 2.05.6(6)(c) therefore does nvt
apply. ire definition of the phrase "material damages has a potentially much
more significant bearing elsewhere under the lades and it is OOVOC's position
that the definition should only be c3~arged after followix~ the appropriate
regulatory review and development process.
Fourth, with regard to the specific language referenced in the permit doament
on page 2.05-155, OOVOC, after frutYrer reviewing this language, finds the
larx3uage to be oansi.stent with the regulations and riot oc¢rtradictory. Zhe text
o~n this page refers to the two separate ~+~*!{*+stions required by the
rsgulatiorts regarding the potential far material damage. ire determinatic~s
differ due to oonssideratioa of various site specific factors applicable to the
Orchard Valley Mine. 'ItLe initial ~*~r±±!~++~tion required at Earle 2.05.6(6) (b) (i)
states that subsidence could cause damage if it ooanred. use subsequent and
move detailed de*~~-'n»tion required at Fade 2.05.6(6) {e) (ii), (iii), and (iv)