GENERAL54973 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT -Water Quality Control Division Rationale -Page 12 Permit No. COR-040000 VII. CHANGES AFTER PUBLIC NOTICE (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 to the RQ [reportable quantity) 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 comaminated will be made in the comext of the permit issuance proceedings. " The Division believes that this should be interpreted to mean that continued permit coverage is no longer needed if it can be shown by the permittee that runoff from the mining activity site is uncontaminated (including sediment). /t will be the Division's presumption that comact does cause contamination, and the permittee will have the burden of proof to show to 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 to undertake this demonstration. This may be an opponuniry for the Division to work with the mining industry and other stakeholders ro develop strategies for this demonstration. In the interim, decisions by the Division will be made on a case-by-case basis. Re¢ardine an exemption for aee or sue 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 tetmination reauirement that equipment and "significant materials" be removed from the site and that mine waste be removed or permanent[v isolated. Several commentors objected to the requirement that all equipmem 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 commemors objected to the termination requirement that all mine waste be removed or permanently isolated as being impractical, infeasible or too onerous. Response: The regulations which require stormwater permits for inactive mines use very broad language. In virtually all cases where the site is still recognizable as ah inaaive mine or mine working, a permit may still be required. In at least one case, the Division has agreed to reclassify an historic mill site as a museum when an Historical Society took title to the property and undertook interpretive signage and tours. However, this is not possible in the majority of cases of perminees wishing to end their permit liability. The Division does not require site remediation unless the perminee is trying to terminate permit coverage. Continued permit coverage is possible with no disturbance of the historic elements. Regardine the removal of equipment and "significant materials": The Division has re-evaluated the termination criteria and eliminated the requiremem 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, equipment and significant materials must be managed in such a way as to reduce their potential to impact stprmwater quality. Amine or mill site, where the materials ors the contact list are not exposed to stormwater, yet which has equipment exposed to stormwater, would not be required to obtain permit coverage. The Division has revised the termination criteria to reflect this situation. Regarding "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 that trigger the need for a stormwater permit if contacted by runoff. The termination criteria as modified, do nor include "overburden ". The two major pollution concerns with overburden are potemial acid generating material and subsequem metals loading, and sedimem delivery to state waters. The criteria have been