Laserfiche WebLink
BEFORE THE MINED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />Notice of Violation No. MV- 2013 -001 <br />FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER <br />IN THE MATTER OF A POSSIBLE VIOLATION BY CALAIS RESOURCES COLORADO, <br />INC., CEASE AND DESIST ORDER, CORRECTIVE ACTIONS, AND CIVIL PENALTIES <br />FOR FAILING TO TIMELY SUBMIT AN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN FOR <br />DIVISION APPROVAL, File No. M- 1990 -057 <br />THIS MATTER came before the Mined Land Reclamation Board ( "Board ") on January <br />9, 2013 in Denver, Colorado as a consent agenda item to consider a possible violation by Calais <br />Resources Colorado, Inc. ("Operator "), cease and desist order, corrective actions, and civil <br />penalties for failing to timely submit an environmental protection plan for Division approval, <br />file number M -1990 -057. <br />The Board, having considered the materials presented with this consent agenda item and <br />having been otherwise fully informed of the facts in the matter, enters the following: <br />FINDINGS OF FACT <br />1. The Operator holds a 110(2) permit for a 8.5 -acre gold mining and milling <br />operation located in Section 20, SE 1/4 of Township 9 South, Range 79 West, 6th Principal <br />Meridian in Lake County, Colorado, permit number M- 1990 -057. The site is known as the <br />Hopemore Shaft. <br />2. On June 20, 2011, the Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety <br />( "Division ") received Technical Revision No. 3 addressing revisions to the milling plan and <br />provided a plan for reconstruction of the tailings impoundment as a lined facility. <br />3. On July 5, 2011, the Division sent the Operator a Notice of Designated Mining <br />Operation ( "DMO ") based on the Operator's use of Potassium Amyl Xanthate ( "PAX ") in the <br />milling process, as proposed in Technical Revision No. 3. <br />4. On July 25, 2011, the Division met with the Operator to discuss the use of PAX in <br />the milling process. The Division agreed to conduct an internal review to determine whether <br />PAX would be considered a designated chemical based on the amount proposed to be used in the <br />milling process. <br />5. On November 23, 2011, the Division informed the Operator that PAX was <br />considered to be a designated chemical and that the Operator would need to submit an <br />Environmental Protection Plan ( "EPP "). <br />6. On December 22, 2011, the Division received a letter from the Operator concurring <br />with the status of the mill as a DMO and requesting an extension of the submittal date of the EPP <br />to one year from the date of notification pursuant to Rule 7.2.3(2)(c) of the Mineral Rules and <br />