|
~, • ~
<br />.,
<br />Mr. Fred Matter, P.E.
<br />
<br />~,, Aso - 33
<br />October 22, 1982 .il u~~Fo 1~. oon7F,ucfir4l ~ti
<br />Page 3 GncJin411y "(~~ (b
<br />~I~y ~.1~ ,• Ca.r ~ `~ .a n4v of 79 - SD .'~. Q, Y,u Lr
<br />0
<br />Pond F) was the subject of a technical revision request submitted J
<br />to the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division ("MEAD"). The ~ ~
<br />technical revision was only approved in February, 1982, and con-
<br />struction began on that pond in the summer of 1982, when weather
<br />permitted. Construction on all three of these ponds should be
<br />completed within the near future, and verification of construc-
<br />tion will be submitted to the Division on or before November 6,
<br />1982.
<br />Discharge points 10 through 15 (CYCC Mine 3 Ponds A, I, B,
<br />C, E, and F, respectively), constitute a different kind of prob-
<br />lem. As stated in our meeting on October 12, all of these ponds
<br />are part of CYCC's Mine 3 area. Mine 3 is the subject of a sepa-
<br />rate mining permit application, which is currently pending before
<br />MLRD. The mining permit for Mine 3 was applied for in February,
<br />1981. The sedimentation control plan for that mine, which in-
<br />cluded the above sedimentation ponds, was part of that permit
<br />application. MLRD has performed its initial adequacy review
<br />regarding the application/ and CYCC has responded to moat of the - no
<br />issues raised at this preliminary stage by MLRD. CYCC is in the s Idiv~ f,;¢ ~+..
<br />process of preparing responses to MLRD's remaining questions. ~""~
<br />The adequacy review and its responses, as you may know, is a pre-I~o~onse
<br />liminary step prior to MLRD's evalution of the permit as a whole,
<br />which will eventually lead to approval of the final mining per- ~~°"" +b
<br />mit. S~~• Gndrol P14,v
<br />It is unknown when MLRD will finally approve the permit _ G`1~-~- ~ C4~~A ~~
<br />application for Mine 3. At least part of the time which has yenr,• Theme ~,d ~+
<br />elapsed may be due to the crush of permit applications which MLRD~,,a,,ril°-F 4,
<br />experienced as a result of implementation of the State Mined Land
<br />Reclamation Program. In addition, mining is not currently pro- ~"~~`P'0i}'~
<br />ceeding at Mine 3, so there may not be the sense of urgency which
<br />might be felt otherwise.
<br />As explained at our meeting, approval by MLRD of the mining
<br />permit is necessary before construction may begin on any facili-
<br />ties covered by the permit, including sedimentation ponds.
<br />Thus, this inconsistency in the programs of two different
<br />agencies presents a true dilemma for CYCC regarding the Mine 3
<br />discharge points. On the one hand, CYCC's Permit on its face
<br />c~ requires CYCC to construct, maintain, and verify its sedimenta-
<br />~~.s tion ponds within 90 days of the date of issuance of the permit,
<br />C April 27, 1981. On the other hand, CYCC cannot construct those
<br />C'yC~ ponds prior to approval of the mining permit by MLRD. The effect
<br />~~,y of this situation is that CYCC cannot either take any action or
<br />wow ~ fail to take any action without at least a technical violation of
<br />~, ~ the rules of either the Department of Health or MLRD.
<br />Q'iy.~.
<br />Y~ Li~i ~~ fin,
<br />~r~ c ~ ` L 6
<br />n
<br />4/ adq. Cam ~~ wr-rc. ss-n* ~~ 1315 ~
<br />
|