Contents of Engineering & Mining Journal - FEB 2012

Engineering and Mining Journal - Whether the market is copper, gold, nickel, iron ore, lead/zinc, PGM, diamonds or other commodities, E&MJ takes the lead in projecting trends, following development and reporting on the most efficient operating pr

Page 39 of 83

CYANIDE REGULATIONS
in a 22-mile stretch of the Alamosa River were killed. Since Galactic Resources was a Canadian company, it was out of easy reach of Colorado regulators, and it eventually went bankrupt. The Colorado Department of Natural Resources and the EPA intervened under CERCLA, and the Summitville site eventually was added as a superfund site. In the minds of Colorado voters, particularly in Summit County, cyanide use in mining not only was fraught with danger for the envi- ronment, the miners who used cyanide were too perceived to be the irresponsible mine- owners like the ones who allowed the Summitville disaster to unfold. In
, A failed leach pad at the Bellavista mine in Costa Rica (2007).
the functional equivalent of the Romanian cyanide spill that had temporarily contam- inated the Danube River—irrefutable proof positive that cyanide inevitably produces environmental disasters. Montana's I-137 initiative banning cyanide was the political outgrowth of this attitude about cyanide.
Colorado was similarly affected by the Summitville cyanide spill. In 1992, Galactic Resources abandoned the Summit- ville mine in Colorado after repeatedly fail- ing to contain cyanide leaks, control acidic rock discharges, and properly treat effluent waste. As a result, most all aquatic species
the plaintiffs, who owned the land upon which the Summitville mine was located and had leased it to Galactic Resources, filed suit against the State of Colorado. The lawsuit claimed the state had failed to inform them of the environmental risks and liabilities associated with Galactic Re- source's mine; improperly granted permits to Galactic Resources; and failed adequate- ly to regulate mine operations.
The ultimate question was whether the state owed the plaintiffs a duty of care under one of the exceptions to the Governmental Immunities Act (GIA). The court ruled that,
38 E&MJ; • FEBRUARY 2012
www.e-mj.com
Aztec Minerals Corp v
.
Romer (1996)