Laserfiche WebLink
Please bear in mind that the EPA-UIC program approved of the process and <br />MRV was under the impression (with significant justification) that the DRMS <br />had already approved of the backfilling. MRV's consultants also believe that <br />the DRMS had, in fact, permitted the backfilling. One serious issue is that the <br />DRMS lost the files associated with the permit amendment that discussed the <br />backfilling issue and continuity of DRMS-MRV dialogue was interrupted by the <br />exit of members of the DRMS staff. This is well known to the DRMS however, <br />the current DRMS position is that MRV is NOT allowed to backfill at the <br />moment. Currently, MRV is not backfilling and is hopeful that this issue can <br />and will be addressed in a near-future Technical Revision. <br />Please refer to two (2) letters from Matt Collins to Ms. Valois Shea, EPA <br />Region 8 that were created as the result of interference by Steen. <br />These letters are self-explanatory but they do reiterate our position that MRV <br />was in full compliance with the Underground Injection Control (UIC) - Class V <br />Injection Well Permit by rule in force at its operation and was not hiding any of <br />these activities. MRV also notes that Mr. Tony Waldron was on site in October <br />of 2008 discussing this exact issue. As regards the future backfilling of Cash <br />Mine active workings, MRV hypothesizes that this may not be a reclamation <br />issue at all. Clearly this issue needs resolved, including the jurisdictional <br />conflict which may exist between the EPA (Federal) and the DRMS (State). As <br />• stated many times, MRV desires nothing less than full and complete regulatory <br />compliance. <br />Mr. Sorenson, you sampled the old pit/shaft located 66 feet south of monitoring <br />well #2, (your photo #1). See Exhibit I to this report and you will see a photo of <br />the same pit with Jim Smith as the scale figure. Please note how hard (solid) <br />these tailing sands have set up, indicating a high degree of self-cementation. <br />One can barely see where your samples were dug. A small depression is all the <br />evidence remaining. <br />MRV is emphatic in its belief that re-designation of this Potential Problem to a <br />violation is inappropriate and unjustified. We do look forward to reviewing the <br />results of the SPLP tests, and comparing them to our independent laboratory <br />results. Again, the characterization of the material is expected to match that <br />already completed and submitted to the EPA and DRMS. <br />PB-2: The thin layers of tailings on the out slope of the tailings dam have been located <br />there by eolian deposition, not any direct emplacement by MRV. The tailings <br />are in affect nothing more, but likely cleaner than, beach sands and like all <br />beach sands throughout the world are subject to eolian processes. In effect, if <br />the DRMS identifies a possible violation here, the culprit is Mother Nature, <br />herself. Certainly MRV cannot claim control over the vast amounts of airborne <br />particulate transport on Gold Hill, which is subject to hurricane force gales. Per <br />40