HYDRO26537 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT -Water Quality Control Division Rationale -Page 72 Permit No. COR-040000 VI/. CHANGES AFTER PUBLIC NOT/CE (cont.) research, the Division found clarification in the preamble to the federal stormwater rules. As published in the Federal Register (Vol. SS,No. 222) on November 16, 1990, page 48032, third column, the preamble states: "Similar fo the RQ [reportable quantiryJ test for oil and gas operations, EPA intends to use the "contact" test solely as a permit application trigger. The determination of whether a mining operation's runoff is contaminated will 6e made in the content of the permit issuance proceedings. " The Division believes that this should be interpreted to mean that contirsued permit coverage is no longer needed iJ it can be shown by the permittee that runoff from the mining activity site is uncontaminated (including sediment). It will be the Division's presumptiors that contact does cause contamination, and the permittee will have the burden of proof to show tp the Division's satisfaction that runoff from a specific site is not contaminated. Since the Division has virtually no experience in this, we have little guidance to offer permittees who wish ro undertake this demonstration. Ibis may 6e an opportunity for the Division to work with the mining industry and other stakeholders to develop strategies jot this demonstration. /n the interim, decisions by the Division will 6e made on a case-by-case basis. Regardin¢ an exemption for ape 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 eouipment and "significant materials" be removed from the site and shot mine waste be removed or permanently isolated. Several commerstors objected to the requirement that a![ equipment and significant materials must be removed from the site before permit coverage can be terminated. They suggest that old equipment and buildings have historic value and tourism interest and should be retained for those reasons. Further, in at least one Colorado county, zoning regulations protect many of these historic structures and tailings piles. Another commentor asserts that overburden and rock should not be considered "significant materials" and that it is not feasible to attain compliance with this criteria in a practical manner. A few commentors objected to the termination requirement that all mine waste 6e rernoved or permanently isolated as being impractical, infeasible or too onerous. Response: The regulations which require stormwater permits for inactive mines use very broad language. /n virtually all cases where the site is still recognizable as an inactive mine or mine working, a permit may still 6e required. In at least one case, the Division has agreed to reclassify ors historic mill site as a museum when an Historical Society took «tle to the property and undertook interpretive 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 permittee is trying to terminate permit coverage. Continued permit coverage is possible with no disturbance of the historic elements. Regarding the removal of equipment and "significant materials": The Division has re-evaluated the termination criteria and eliminated the requirement to remove equipment and significant materials. The deciding factor regarding whether 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, equipmem and significant materials must be managed in such a way as to reduce their potential to impact stormwater quality. Amine or mill site, where the materials on the contact list are not exposed to stormwater, yet which has equipment exposed to stormwater, would rsot be required to obtain permit coverage. The Division has revised the termination criteria ro reflect this situation. Re¢arding "overburden ": This term is not specifically included or excluded in the definition of significant material, however, "overburden" is one of the materials in the "contact list". This is the list of materials [hat trigger the need for a stormwater permit if contacted by runoff The termination criteria as modified, do not include "overburden ". The two major pollution concerns with overburden are potential acid generating material and subsequent metals loading, and sediment delivery to state waters. The criteria have been