GENERAL47321 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. James Cowart December 17, 1997 Page 6 grouted closed. If not, they will need to be removed. The operator had submitted reclamation costs to remove the pipelines but not to regrade or revegetate any disturbance. I believe this indicates the pipelines are not buried and will need to be removed. c) Reclamation of the pond and Hazel A decant lines. d) Sealing the Time Mine, if this has not been already completed. Allen Sorenson's comments: 1. In section 2 of the Conceptual Reclamation Plan, it is stated [hat the Gold Hill Mill is set up to use drainage water from the Hazel-A adit as process water. Tn fact, in order to use the Hazel-A water, the operator would have to obtain a well permit from the Office of the State Engineer. Since the operator is consuming Hazel-A water continuously through evaporation, even when the mill is not running, a well permit must be obtained. The Division raised this as an issue in an inspection report dated 8/5/96. In response, the operator applied for a well permit on 9/11/96. A check of the State Engineer's records indicates that the well permit application was found inadequate and was returned to the operator on 9/30/96, with no subsequent action taken by the operator to obtain the pemrit. As such, the operator is currently consuming water from an unpermitted well (the Hazel-A adit).. 2. Tn section 3.1 of the Conceptual Reclamation Plan, it is stated that operation and maintenance of the Hazel-A adit will be the responsibility of the owner once it has been pumped down and all Franklin equipment and piping are removed. It was the operator, Colina Oro Molino, that plumbed the Hazel-A into the mill process water circuit, and it was Colina Oro Molino that inadvertently sluiced tailing into the Hazel-A. It was these actions that created the requirement for a CDPS permit to dischazge ground water collected in the adit. In accordance with Water Quality Control Division and Environmental Protection Agency policy, the ground water discharged from the Hazel-A adit prior to Colino's actions would have been a low priority for CDPS permitting. As such, it is the operator's responsibility, not the landowner's, to maintain the Hazel-A in a zero-dischazge configuration or to assure that any dischazges are incompliance with the Water Quality Control Act. If the operator disconnects the decant line that plumbs the pond to the Hazel-A, and if the operator demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Division that all tailing and other introduced contaminants have been removed from the adit, and if the operator secures a document from the owner of the adit that he will be responsible for ground water inflows to the adit, the Division could release the operator from on-going compliance with the permit as it regards the Hazel-A adit. Alternatively, the operator could, as your draft adequacy letter states, petition the Water Quality Control Division for a finding that discharges from the adit do not require a CDPS permit.