Laserfiche WebLink
-4- July 22, 2009 <br />(3) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2) of this section, any person other than a governmental <br />unit may dispose of the person's own solid wastes on the person's own property, as long as such <br />solid wastes disposal site and facility complies with the rules of the solid and hazardous waste <br />commission and does not constitute a public nuisance. For the purposes of this part 1, such solid <br />wastes disposal site and facility shall be an approved site for which obtaining a certificate of <br />designation under the provisions of section 30-20-105 shall be unnecessary. This subsection (3) <br />shall not preclude any person from applying for a certificate of designation for the disposal of the <br />person's own solid wastes on the person's own property. <br />This, however, does not preclude us from meeting all of the technical standards and engineering requirements of the <br />Solid Waste regulations. We submitted a very detailed Design and Operating Report consisting of our engineering <br />in May 2007 to the CDPHE and they accepted it, with a request for several engineering items to be clarified. They <br />did not indicate any jurisdictional concerns and even acknowledged the project does indeed fall under the "one's <br />own waste" provision. <br />In April 2009 we sent the final engineering work to the CDPHE to now discover they changed their jurisdictional <br />position. The item of contention boils down to whether or not picking up and transporting the waste rock <br />dumps to an off-site facility constitutes a "mining operation". They, the CDPHE, will not proceed any further <br />with our application until clarity is received from the DBMS. <br />We are in no way trying to shirk responsibility by navigating this regulatory path. At the local County level, we will <br />be applying for excavation permits at the dump sites so that appropriate "best management practices" and <br />stormwater mitigation measures are taken. Final grading and reclamation/re-vegetation provisions are part of the <br />excavation permits. At the mill site, the CDPHE Solid Waste Disposal regulations are designed for and provide a <br />carefully regulated impoundment that will also have reclamation measures. <br />Our 40-ton per day mobile processing facility is literally ready to turn on now. Through this period of indecision <br />with the CDPHE we have had to lay-off four full time employees. Once operating, we will hire an additional 10-12 <br />full time employees. Considering the economic crisis at hand, we feel that this is a major contribution to the local <br />economy. And, perhaps most importantly, the end result is an environmental cleanup of a mess that we all recognize <br />is a problem and have done little to eliminate it. Right now we are seeking clarity to alleviate a bureaucratic <br />stalemate. <br />We have frequently witnessed both Gilpin and Clear Creek county moving and transporting this material from run- <br />off collection basins and where it affects roadways. We have seen various contractors move and transport this <br />material away during road work projects, casino construction and residential home construction. There are groups <br />claiming to be doing remediation projects by relocating waste to the "Church Placer" project area. We are aware of <br />the Clear Creek Watershed Foundation relocating waste rock to other parts of Clear Creek County. All of these <br />items mentioned, to our awareness, have been done without a mining permit. Why is our situation any different? <br />Venture Resources is petitioning the Board to make a Declaratory Order to resolve this source of apparent confusion <br />regarding whether or not picking up and transporting waste rock material from an abandoned mine to an off-site <br />facility constitutes a "mining operation". After considering our Petition we would hope that the Board agrees and <br />issues a Declaratory Order confirming what we have presented. <br />We are aware that some DRMS staff will be making a recommendation to the contrary. Their motivation is unclear <br />and we hope the Board considers the facts carefully. They, some DRMS staff, have known of our intentions for two <br />years (being directly involved with several study meetings on our project at Clear Creek County offices in 2007) <br />and we are frustrated that it has become an issue now. The CO DMG spent a great deal of money analyzing the <br />situation in our area as evidenced by the attached reports.