REV02620

• Permit No: M1980244
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 5/9/2000
• Doc Name: COMMENTS ON CRIPPLE CREEK & VICTOR GOLD MINING CO CCV AMENDMENT 8
• From: COLORADO WILD
• To: DMG
• Type & Sequence: AM8
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

From' Jelf 9erman Faw:.1(]03)5eG9922 To~ Berhan Re6elew Far' (30316]2.9106 Page 3 0! 6 Tuesmy, May 09. 2000 1:13 PM
Colorado Wild
Similarly, CCV should be ably to ensure that zinc levels in the discharge tram the Carlton
Tunnel will not exceed limits. Relying on the excuse of "heave precipitation" to avoid
compliance with environmental protection limits is unacceptable. Treatment or other means of
mitigating the discharge problems is needed.
For the exceedences in the Mequa Gulch area as well as the Carlton Tunnel, the state cannot
approve any intendment that does not adequatel} protect water qualit}'. Rule 3.1.6 states that:
Disturbances to the ... quality of water in surface and subsurface groundwater systems both
during and after the mining operation and during reclamation shall be minimized by measures.
including, but not limited to:
(b) compliance with applicable federal and Colorado water quality laws and regulations....
CC& V has not shown that its entire operations, including the underdrain system and associated
facilities in Arequa Gulch, as well as the Carlton Tunnel, have met this strict test.
It should be noted that the fact that some of these facilities may have been previously permitted,
such as the underdrains, does not excuse CC& V, or the DMG7MLRB, from these requirements.
if information has come to the state's attention that the operations have exceeded acceptable
levels, and there is a reasonable likelihood that such txceedences can re-occur under current and
proposed operations, the DMGlMLRB must act to ensure that the problems do not re-occur.
Regazding the pollutant exceedences front the Carlton Tunnel, these are within the scope of the
DMGlMLRB's authority. CCV specifically relies on the flows [o the Carlton as a means to
reduce the pollution levels draining from the tvasle rink to acceptable levels. Thus, the company
cannot rely on the Tunnel in this manner yet at the lama time argue that discharges from the
Tunnel are outside the bounds of DIvIG'biLRB authority in considering the current Application.
If that is the case, then entire sections of Amendtttettt 8 regarding "neutralization" of drainage to
the Carlton nmst be disregarded.
Additionally, the fact that the WQCD has detertttitted trot to seek formal enforcement action
• against CCV for these exceedences does not elirtunate the requirements in the Mined Land Act
and Rules. The WQCD's decision dues not utean that CC&V is flee to operate so as to cause
these exceedences again. The DMGibILRB has a responsibility to ensure that no reasonable
potential exists for these exceedences to re-occur.
Colorado Wild is further concerted about the old tailings material that may Ue disturbed to make
way for the new maintenance facility discussed in Vol. I, p. 85. CCV did not provide substantive
information on the chemical composition of these materials. If they were processed in the past
similar to the Ironclad and Globe Hill tailings underlying the VLF, it is very possible that the
WAD CN exceedences noted about could occur involving these materials. The potential for
long-term pollutant drainage should be investigated.
Under Rules 6 and 7, Amendment 8 cannot be approved without a full analysis of these materials
and a definite plan provided for their fate. [t ceetn5 the fate of these materials is dependent upon