REV106955 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

05/19/99 14:49 LAND 8 WATEP. FUND OF THE RDCKIES 3O~B32Bt06 N0.853 D07 116(7)(c). See also, CRS 34-32-116(7)(8), (h), and (i). All of CC&V's previous commitments, especially those involving AMDhoxics and other environmental requirements, should be maintained by the DMGMILRB as permit conditions. At a minimum, CC&V should be required to undertake all feasible methods to "protect the drainage system from pollution." In addition, this would include an increase in the financial warrsmty to cover such activities. Violating previous commitments and DMG directions fails these duties. The new information submitted with Amendment 8 admits that a large percentage of waste rock will likely be acid-generating. Simply saying that such contamination will be neutralized by the time it reaches the Cazlwn and Roosevelt Tunnels does not adequately protect the public. It should also be noted that CC&V inaccurately characterizes the level of 0.8% total sulfur "to be a cutoff value below which overburden does not generate acidic leachates...." Vol. II, Shepard Millet Mazch 22, 2000, Hydrogeochemical Evaluation at p. 21 (emphasis added). It is our understanding that the DMG has never stated this to be true. Rased on Dr. Harry Poses previous communications and testimony before Judge Connick in CC&V's challenge to the Water Quality Control Divisions discharge permit {WQ 96-02), the DMG believes that acidic leachates are possible below 0.8%. In fact, it is very possible that waste rock with 0.48% sulfur will generate acidic drainage. This is the "average" sulfur content of the entire waste rock generated under Amendment 8. Vol. II, Shepard Miller at 21. To base a conclusion that al l waste rock with total sulfur below 0.8% "does not generate acidic leachates" is not supported in the record. The DMG/MLRB should require CC&V to reanalyze the geochemical and reclamation issues with a much lower "cutoff' for acidic leachates. We believe that CC&tV should be held to ics previous commitments that it will segregate all materials that have the potential to generate acidic leachates. These materials should be disposed of so that there is no reasonable chance that water will ever interact with the materials. At a minimum, such materials must not be placed in the same facilities as those that do not have the potential for such releases. E. Water Quality Monitoring is Inadeouate CCBcV proposes to move surface water monitoring in Arequa Gulch faz downstream to AG 2.0, instead of the current locations very near the toe of the VLF. Although it appeazs that the cuaent monitoring and compliance points maybe buried by the expansion of facilities, that is no excuse for such a removed location. The compliance and monitoring location should be as close as possible to facilities in all drainages. Regarding monitoring response action levels, the use of a 30-day running average of WAD CN in the VLF underdrains of 1.0 mgll is unacceptable. The appropriate standazd of 0.2mg/l WAD CN should be used and the 30-day average should be eliminated. A daily maximum is more appropriate and protective of public resources. Also, daily monitoring is needed, especially in light of the numerous exceedences of WAD CN in the Arequa Gulch area in 1999.