2002-05-02_PERMIT FILE - M2002004 (4)

Home Browse Search

05/02/2002 16:06 4716922 EILAND LAW PAGE 07 adjacent to the blasting area, and subject to the "fallout" from blasting agent, will be piled up, without surface cover, so that the amount of blasting agent will be concentrated in the pile. Rio Grande's blasting plan contains no reference to necessary measures to stabilize and protect these piles from contamination, as required by Rule 3.1.6.(3), which will ultimately contain a relatively high concentration of contamination accumulated from blasting on adjacent strips (e.g., protective liners underneath the piles). Almost constant wind erosion, in addition to water erosion from periodic heavy rainfall, can disperse the dust from these piles beyond the site's boundaries. In case of seepage from snowmelt and rain, there exists significant potential for groundwater contamination. Rule 3.1.7 states that Rio Grande must show that it will protect groundwater quality standards. It is unclear, in the permit application, how the blasting agent will be kept from seeping into groundwater. There is a reasonable potential for degradation of groundwater quality, as well as of surface. To solve the problem with respect to both groundwater and surface water, a less contaminative blasting agent should be used. If ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel are to be used, the reclamation plan should include measures that will remove it from the soil and potential entrance into ground or surface water. Testing procedures to determine if treatment has successfully taken place should be included, including some criterion for determining that the agent is cleaned from the soil so that it can neither filter into the groundwater nor run off into surface water. This case fits the criterion of "reasonability," from blasting agent alone, An adequate groundwater monitoring program is not included in the permit. 3. 1.8 Wildlife. Rule 3.1.7 states that points of compliance, if not established, shall be determined, and on groundwater monitoring specifies that "a groundwater monitoring program shall be required . .. where are adverse impact on groundwater quality may reasonably be expected." The permit does not appear to deal with the potential of contamination resulting from the huge quantities of blasting agent, or establish compliance points for dealing with such contamination. Contamination will not stop at the site boundary because pollutants can seep into the groundwater. Rule 3.1.7.6.8. III, states that the office should consider the factors of toxicity, mobility, and persistence in the environment of the contaminants and " (IV) the potential of the site as an aquifer recharge area." The mesa slopes downward toward the north and the St. Charles River and neighboring farms in the river valley. Runoff from the site containing blasting agent could negatively affect the surface water quality for these users. Exhibit D (Mining Plan), p. D-4, states that impoundment of runoff water in the mining holes is designed for a 100-yr. storm event. CCAP believes that is too little and should be raised to be designed for a 500-yr. event. Cloud bursts happen in that area frequently, and often exceed the 100-yr. storm, event volume in limited areas washing out roads and small dams. If the impoundment areas are not designed correctly and such a storm hits that area, it will wash out the ponds, sending the runoff and contaminants into the St. Charles River, and also let loose a volume of water that could produce flooding on farms downstream. If the holding ponds do not fail, they could still allow a large amount of water contaminated with blasting agent to seep into the groundwater.