1999-06-14_HYDROLOGY - M1974052 (3)

Home Browse Search

0 III IIIIIIIIIIIII III STATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF ,MINERALS AND GEOLOGY �i•p.u'i n•m d V.Izw1 ,1 F. •vx,n:.5 111 i Shr,mdn 5T_ Room 213 D•rn •r,C'do,ado,307U7 D I V I S I O N O F Phnnu"iG; gyhJ 36% Ni I N E RA L S GEOLOGY R EC LA MAr 1 0 N MI N ING-SAFE T( June 14, 1999 For Your Correspondence File Mr. Glenn Mallory Mr. Roger Doak D CDPHE-HNIWNID 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, CO 80246-1530 Subject: Varra Company, Inc., Coal Fly Ash Disposal Plan, Pit No. 1, MLRB Permit No. M-74-052. Thank you for the copy of your letter to Varra Companies (May 3, 1999), which was sent to Harry Posey of DMG. By way of review, Varra submitted a certificate of designation request to CDPHE for a pilot project to test the environmental consequences of coal fly ash disposed below water. Varra Pit No,1, the proposed disposal test facility, is part of a gravel quarry that is permitted currently under the Mined Land Reclamation Act. Your letter gave an "unfavorable determination" to the Operator's request for a Certificate of Designation for coal fly ash at the Varra Pit No. 1. The following letter addresses two topics: (1) the overlapping jurisdiction over groundwater and surface reclamation and (2) potential adverse effects of the operation on surface water. As you are aware, there has been some question about potential overlap of DMG and CDH oversight at this site. Provided the fly ash is a solid waste, the HMWMD apparently has oversight authority and regulatory obligations. However, because the pilot project is to take place in a mine that is under an active mining and reclamation permit, DMG has certain authorities and regulatory obligations as well. It appears that the separate authorities of both DMG and HMWMD cover groundwater monitoring as defined under Senate Bill 181, surface reclamation, and control over the generation of potential surface water contaminants, in this case. Because neither of our agencies has adopted a clear oversight lead, Varra has applied to both DMG and HMWMD for disposal of the coal fly ash. However, considering that both the HMWMD and DMG have bonding authority for the project, and that HMWMD will charge a permit review fee whereas DMG cannot, the issue of jurisdiction deserves to be revisited. DMG would like to propose the following: provided the effects of fly ash disposal on groundwater at this facility can be monitored by the HNIWNID, that surface reclamation can be addressed under your solid waste disposal authority, and that controls over the composition of potential surface water discharges can be effected by the HNIWMD or other CDH programs, then the DN1G would encourage the operator to request that the disposal facility and all