Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Eric Scott, DRMS <br /> January 26, 2017 RYLEY CARLOCK <br /> Page 2 of 9 & A P P L E W H I T E <br /> Attorneys <br /> As the Division is well aware, the setting of NPLs is governed by Reg 41 and by <br /> DRMS Hard Rock Metal Mining Rule ("HRMMR") 3.1.7(2). EPRC's suggestion that NPLs <br /> should be equivalent to or more stringent than surface water quality standards is inconsistent <br /> with the Colorado regulatory scheme, and is also inconsistent with the language in <br /> Section 5.1 of the Water Quality Management Plan ("WQMP") that was agreed to by EPRC <br /> and approved by DRMS as part of AM-06 approval in December, 2011. Section 5.1 of the <br /> WQMP provides that "NPLs are established for POC wells using the CBSG Table Values as <br /> a guide with consideration given to baseline data, where available." <br /> EPRC's December 191h letter does not dispute the core conclusion reached in the <br /> Reg 41 Submittal: The Mine is in compliance with Reg 41. EPRC's letter does not assert <br /> that setting NPLs at levels consistent with the Reg. 41 Submittal would result in a violation <br /> of Reg 41, HRMMR 3.1.7(2), or the WQMP. Indeed, regulatory analysis is conspicuous by <br /> its absence in EPRC's letter. We do not address the Leonard Rice Engineers, Inc. ("LRE") <br /> Memorandum that was attached to the December 19`h letter, as it provided technical <br /> comments on a draft update to the WQMP that has not been further revised or submitted to <br /> DRMS. <br /> Before addressing the contents of the December 19`h letter, it is important to note that <br /> protection of the quality of water in Eagle Park Reservoir is of high priority to Climax. <br /> Page One of LRE's 2015 Evaluation of Eagle Park Reservoir Water Quality states that <br /> "Water quality in the Reservoir continues to be excellent" and ground and surface water <br /> sampling data demonstrate that Climax's EPP measures are working as designed and <br /> successful in protecting the Reservoir. Importantly, Climax and EPRC have an ongoing <br /> relationship that shares information and concerns. The two entities also work cooperatively <br /> together on issues of common interest. The two entities have a history of being able to work <br /> out differences and finding common ground; technical discussions continue between EPRC, <br /> LRE and Climax. <br /> Notwithstanding this constructive relationship, we provide this letter to the Division <br /> for the record, and to correct the implication that could be drawn from the letter that good <br /> water quality is threatened. We ask that our analysis be taken into consideration by the <br /> Division. We do not try to rebut every mischaracterization in the letter, such as those <br /> relating to MLRB's actions in 2011; the record speaks for itself as to what the Board did at <br /> the time. Rather, we wish to address the substantive assertions as to actions inconsistent with <br /> AM-06. <br /> Instead of analyzing the Reg 41 Submittal data and applicable regulations, the <br /> December 19`h letter argues that setting NPLs at the levels foreshadowed by the Reg 41 <br /> Submittal would violate restrictions on groundwater pollution from the Mine contained in <br /> three separate instruments: <br /> 1. the June, 2011, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and <br /> Order of the MLRB granting Climax's application to amend its Permit (the <br />