2015-10-13_PERMIT FILE - P2014019

• Permit No: P2014019
• IBM Index Class Name: PERMIT FILE
• Doc Date: 10/13/2015
• Doc Name: Application Withdrawal Notice
• From: Greg Lewicki & Assoc.
• To: DRMS
• Email Name: MAC
• Email Name: WHE
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

10/13/2015 State.co.us Executive Branch Mail - Hock Hocking NOI
STATE OF Cunningham - DNR, Michael <[e-mail]>
COLORADO
Hock Hocking NOI
1 message
Greg Lewicki <[e-mail]> Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:25 AM
To: "Cunningham - DNR, Michael" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Mike Haseldan ([e-mail])" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
<[e-mail]>, "Ed Haselden (ed has [e-mail])" <edhaseldMtlglwb
Mike:
OCT 13 2015
A summary of the status of the Hock Hocking NOI is given below: DIVISION OF RECLAMATION
A few years ago, we applied for a NOI for the Revenue Mine in Ouray County to condu�irrel�abNwo�k n the mine
and a significant amount of underground drilling. As part of the DRMS review process, CDPHE provided a letter
stating that no discharge permit was needed for this activity. The work proceeded with no problems and we later
permitted the entire mine with DRMS and got a full mine water discharge permit with CDPHE.
In 2014, we applied for a very similar NOI for the Hock Hocking Mine in Park County Colorado. It is also an old
underground mine that has various sulfide minerals and was last mined in the 1800's. It has approximately 0.5 to
1.0 cfs of drinkable water coming out of the mine. The water is currently being sold to users in Denver at
substantial prices. A new company in Denver proposed to conduct an exploratory drilling program in the Hock
Hocking Mine as part of the NOI. Knowing that CDPHE was becoming sensitive about mine discharges, we
included numerous mitigation items in the application, such as commitment to immediately plug holes if they
were making any water, small berms at the underground drill sites so that no drill water could leave the mine,
etc.
Kathy Rosow of CDPHE reviewed the DRMS application and stated that a permanent discharge permit would be
required for the exploration activity even though the drilling program may only last 45-60 days and we would have
no discharges. She said it would be required since there was "a potential for a discharge". We knew this could
be problematic since we were not sure if the permit limits could be met even for the existing water coming from
the mine. For this reason, we applied for a PEL evaluation, which is basically where CDPHE would tell us what
the permit limits would be if a discharge permit was in fact applied for. Since risking non-compliance for the
existing water was very important, we did our own calculations of the PELs and when compared to the water
samples we took from the mine water leaving the mine, we were in compliance with the daily maximums that we
calculated. At this point, we felt good about our prospects for PELs that we could live with. Nevertheless, we
submitted the PEL application to CDPHE with our own calculations.
After sitting on their desks for months, they finally worked on and issued the PELs. Immediately, we noticed that
there was a 2 year average requirement that was many times stricter than the daily averages. These levels in
some cases were so low, that it would be impossible to comply with. For example, we measured dissolved silver
at 0.21 micrograms/liter from the mine discharge. The Daily max in the PELs is 3.5 so that is acceptable.
However, the 2 year average is 0.019 micrograms/liter (no typo here), which is virtually impossible! See
attached Table. When we asked CDPHE about why the 2 yr average was imposed, they said that we were within
2 miles of the junction with the Middle Fork of the S Platte and that we were close enough to the Middle Fork
that the "anti -deg redation standards" for the S Platte applied. We think this is because there are trout that they
wanted to protect in the S Platte. This concern trumped the normal way that the calculations are done for
Mosquito Creek, which is the actual receiving stream. We said that these averages were never imposed for the
Revenue Mine and we do not see this anywhere in the CDPHE regulations where it states that this can be done.
They responded that it was arbitrary on their part based on our proximity to the Middle Fork of the S Platte. We
responded that the 2 yr averages were approximately 10 times lower than the daily maximums, making the daily
averages meaningless. They said that is what they felt would be needed.
We discussed everything intemally and contemplated fighting the standards but it was decided that it was too
risky to spend more money on it so we have pulled the plug and no exploration will occur. Treatment of the water
hftps:Hmai l.google.com/mai I/u/0/?ui=2&tk=3al d83e556&view=pt&search=i nbox&th=15O6205d73ael34b&sim l=1506205d73ael34b 1/2