My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1996-06-12_ENFORCEMENT - M1977378
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Enforcement
>
Minerals
>
M1977378
>
1996-06-12_ENFORCEMENT - M1977378
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/17/2021 7:17:42 AM
Creation date
6/29/2012 7:01:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977378
IBM Index Class Name
ENFORCEMENT
Doc Date
6/12/1996
Doc Name
Sunnyside Gold Corp v. WQCD
From
Dufford & Brown, P.C.
To
Echo Bay Mines
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL <br /> PROTECTION AGENCY ON THE CONSENT DECREE AND ASSOCIATED <br /> PERMITS <br /> The following are the responses of the Colorado Water Quality Control Division <br /> (WQCD) to the comments of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on <br /> the WQCD's proposed Consent Decree with Sunnyside Gold Corporation (SGC) and <br /> associated permits. The responses are arranged and numbered in the same manner as EPA's <br /> comments. <br /> COVER LETTER <br /> Comment: In its letter, EPA states that the permits must function as stand alone <br /> documents regardless of the existence of the Consent Decree. <br /> Response: The WQCD agrees. The permits were reviewed to find any terms or <br /> conditions that through reference were dependent upon the contents of the Consent <br /> Decree. Where such permit conditions were found, they were revised to more <br /> explicitly describe the intended permit requirements. However, there is one exception <br /> to this that should be noted. Each draft permit included a termination clause which <br /> referred directly back to the Consent Decree. While this clause was modified to <br /> additionally require compliance with State permit regulations, it was determined that it <br /> would not be practical to include the Consent Decree's conditions related to permit <br /> termination within the permits themselves. Also, the termination clauses do not affect <br /> the enforceability of the permits. For these reasons, the termination clauses' <br /> references to the consent decree were retained. <br /> CONSENT DECREE <br /> 1. Comment: Page 12, Paragraph 8: Although Section VIII states the "A List"projects <br /> must be completed prior to a permit termination request, it would be clearer to state <br /> that in this section. Suggested change/addition: "After completion of the "A List" <br /> projects, SGC may request a Permit Termination Assessment. Within sixty days of a <br /> request by SGC, the Division will complete a Permit Termination Assessment pursuant <br /> to Section VIII of the Consent Decree. " <br /> Response: The WQCD believes that the suggested change would confuse, rather that <br /> clarify the Consent Decree, and declines to make the suggested change to the Consent <br /> Decree. Paragraph 8 clearly states that a Permit Termination Assessment must be <br /> performed pursuant to paragraph 14 of Section VIII. This paragraph lists seven <br /> criteria which must be met for a Successful Permit Termination Assessment, one of <br /> which is completion of "A" list projects. To list, in paragraph 8, only one of these <br /> 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.