1999-06-14_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - M1974052 (7)

Home Browse Search

T �F COLOMDO III IIIIIIIIIIIII III DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY 999 Dep,mmerl of Natural Re,Uuries 1 31 3 Sherman St.. Room 215 Denver,Colorado 80203 D I V I S I ON O r Phone:13031866-3567 M I N E RA L S FAX 11o31 8 32-8106 & GEOLOGY RECLAMATION MINING-SAFETY June 14, 1999 3.11 Oren, Mr. Glenn Mallory Mr. Doak es ondenee File G,.g E.wa1,ne s Rogerp Fer VdUf coif P E¢`CUII C Dmnnr CDPHE-HMWMD nhc6ael a Inns; 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Dpv„on Dire,lnr 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 HMWMD, 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 HMWMD or other CDH programs, then the DMG would encourage the operator to request that the disposal facility and all