HYDRO22567 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT -Water Quality Control Division Rafronale -Page 12 Permit No. COR-040000 VII. CHANGES AFTER PUBLIC NOTICE (cont.) research, the Division found clarification in the preamble ro the federal stormwater rules. As published in the Federal Register (Vol. SS,No. 222) on November Iii, 1990, page 48032, third column, the preamble states: "Similar to the RQ [reponable gttamiryJ test for oil and gas operations, EPA intends to use the "comact" test solely as a permit application trigger. The determination of whether a mining operation's runoff is comarvnated will be made in the contest of the permit issuance proceedings. " The Division believes that this should be interpreted to mean that contiwed permit coverage is no longer needed if it ran be shown by the permittee that runoff from the mining activity site is uncontaminated (including sediment). /t will be tl~e Division's presumption that contact does cause contamination, and the pennittee will have the burdrn of proof to show to the Division's satisfaction that runoff from a specific site is not comaminated. Since the Divi:ion has virtually no experience in this, we have little guidance to offer permittees who wish to undertake this demonstration. This may be an opportunity for the Division to work with the mining industry and other stakeholders to develop strategies for this demonstration. In the interim, decisions by the Division wiL16e made on a case-by-case basis. Reeardine an exemption for aee or size of site: The regulations state that permits are required for active inactive and mining activities, regardless of their age or size. There is no flexibility for the Division to exempt sites on these bases. 4. The termination reouirement that eoaipment and "signifcant matnials" be removed from the site and that mine waste be removed or permanently isolated. Several commemors objected to the requirement that all equipment and signiftt:ant materials must be removed from the site before permit coverage can be terminated. They suggest Char old equipment and buildings have historic value and tourism interest and should be retained for those reasons. Funkier, in at least one Colorado county, zoning regulations protect many of these historic structures and tailings piles. Another commemor asserts that overburden and rock should not be considered "significam materials" and that it is not feasible ro attain compliance with this criteria in a practical manner. A few commemors objected to the terminaton requirement that all mine waste be removed or permanently isolated as being impractical, infeasible or too onerous. Response: The regulations whidt require stormwater permits for inactive mines use very broad language. In virtually all cases where the site is still recognizable as an inactive mine or mine working, a permit may sril[ be required. In at least one case, the Division has agreed to reclassify an historic mill site as a museum whrn an Historical Society took title ro the property and undenook imerprerive signage and tours. However, this is not possible in the majority of cases of permittees wishing to end their permit liability. The Division does not ' require site remediation unless the pennittee is trying to terminate permit coverage. Continued permit coverage is possible with no disturbance of the historic elements. Reeardine the removal of eoaipment and "signifeant materials ": The Division has re-evaluated the termination criteria and eliminated the requirement to remove equipment and signtfrcanr materials. The deciding factor regarding whetherr a permit is needed is exposure of the materials in the "contact list" (overburden, raw material, intermediate products, finished products, byproducts or waste products). Once a permit is deemed necessary, equipment and significant materiak must be managed in such a way as to reduce their potential to impact stonnw~uer quafiry. Amine or mill site, where the materials on the comact list are not exposed to stonnwater, yet which has equipmem exposed to stormwater, would nor be required ro obtain permit coverage. The Division has revised the termination criteria to reflect this situation. Reeardirte "overburden": This term is nor sperifically included or escluded in the definition of significant material, however, "overburden" is one of the materials in the "comact list ". This is the list of materials that trigger the need for a stormwarer permit if comacted by twwfi: The termination criteria as modified, do not include "overburden ". The two major pollution concerns with overburden are potemial acid generating material and subsequent metals loading, and sediment delivery to state waters. The criteria have been