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
if there are continuing discharges from the American Tunnel. The critical issue is <br /> that SGC not be released from its permits if discharge continues unless another party <br /> or parties has assumed treatment of American Tunnel discharge water. Because the <br /> clause beginning with the word "maintenance" is conjunctive with the clause <br /> beginning with the word "treatment," so that both maintenance and treatment are <br /> required, a definition of the word "maintenance" has little or no import. This <br /> requirement is also set forth in paragraph 14a, establishing one of the criteria for a <br /> Successful Permit Termination Assessment as follows: "Hydrologic controls and seals <br /> eliminating flows from the lower American Tunnel portal have been completed, or <br /> CDPS Permit No. CO-0027529, for water treatment at the American Tunnel, will <br /> have been accepted by another party or parties." <br /> 5. Comment: Page 15, Paragraph 9.b. and Page 21, Paragraph 13: Work plans for <br /> each of the mitigation projects covered by the draft permit CO-0044768, and listed in <br /> Appendix A should be reviewed and approved through the permit process. <br /> Response: Work Plans for the "A" and "B" list projects are attached to the permit <br /> and have been reviewed and approved as part of it. Any Work Plans for additional <br /> remediation projects will be reviewed and approved by the WQCD through the permit <br /> process. <br /> Comment: A specific time frame for receiving additional workplans should be <br /> established in the Consent Decree and mine remediation plan permit. We suggest <br /> wording similar to: "If SGC notifies the Division that they intend to perform <br /> additional remediation projects, then SGC will submit work plans within sixty (60) <br /> days of the notification or within a reasonable timeframe based on the accessibility of <br /> the site for planing and the complexity of the project. " <br /> Response: The parties agree to change the first two sentences of paragraph 13 (page <br /> 21) to read as follows: <br /> In the event that the Permit Termination criteria of paragraph 14 <br /> below are not met following completion of all the mitigation <br /> projects on both the "A" and "B" Lists, within sixty days after <br /> the Division notifies SGC of such a determination, SGC will <br /> notify the Division whether or not it intends to propose <br /> additional remediation projects which are anticipated to have a <br /> positive impact on the water quality of the Animas River. If <br /> SGC determines that it will propose additional such projects, it <br /> will submit proposed Work Plans to the Division within sixty <br /> days of the notification or within a reasonable timeframe based <br /> on the accessibility of the site for planning and the complexity <br /> of the project. <br /> 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.