2011-08-18_HYDROLOGY - M1977306 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, Water Quality Control Division Rationale — Page 20, Permit No. C00036251 these mines, leaving a significant liability in place at a site that shows no near -term potential to cover the costs necessary to protect water quality on these stream segments. In such a case as this, the WQCD should limit Colorado's financial exposure by properly implementing its authority to require a financial warranty to ensure the long -term operation of the required water treatment plant. The Permit must be Implemented Consistent with the Mine Land Reclamation Act Requirements. The Schwartzwalder Mine presents a good example where the WQCD and the DRMS are attempting to implement their respective regulatory regimes in a cooperative and effective manner. Unfortunately the WQA does not indicate any recognition that any treatment facility or other aspect of these mines are subject to DRMS review and approval in an Environmental Protection Plan. Here, no such Plan has been proposed, and any attempt to operate unpermitted mine works would rightly subject Cotter Corporation to serious fines. When DRMS and BLM conducted the EPP inquiry at the nearby Sunday Mine Complex, numerous water quality problems were identified. See DRMS Mine File # M1977285 (EPP and BLM Review documents dated 2009 - 2010). Unfortunately, it does not appear that the necessary WQCD review and approvals were sought as part of the ongoing BLM /DRMS efforts to address and remedy ongoing problems as the Sunday Mine Complex. Likewise, when DRMS reviewed the materials submitted for the Schwartzwalder Mine EPP, numerous problems and violations were found, with subsequent violations and stringent requirements imposed by DRMS regarding ongoing mine water problems. A recent inspection by the DRMS reveals that the JD -9 mine is in serious disrepair with mine workings affected by subsidence with the conditions deteriorated to such a degree that the mine is currently not operable: the pits are lined however they are beyond their life expectancy. Although multiple agencies have oversight over these two mines subject to the present draft permit and WQA, WQCD is encouraged to take a lead role, while engaging and working in particularly close cooperation with DRMS staff to ensure that the regulatory complexities do not allow these and other federal mines to escape necessary regulation and protections provided by Colorado's implementation of the Clean Water Act. The quality of tributary groundwater in the vicinity and downgradient of JD -7 has been tested and the data and information provided to the Radiation Management Unit of CDPHE have revealed significant exceedances of groundwater standards downgradient from JD -7. See generally: CDPHE Energy Fuels Application Website, see also Exh. 6 (Map depicting groundwater flow). Despite the documented exceedances, the JD -7 has not been investigated as a potential source of the downgradient contamination during the consideration of the pending mill license application. The groundwater at the adjacent proposed mill site has been determined as tributary to the Dolores River, and presumably is tributary to East Paradox Creek as well. Current testing of groundwater down gradient from JD -7 shows fluctuating groundwater levels and reported concentrations of numerous constituents which are as much as thirty -five times the applicable regulatory standards for groundwater. RESPONSE 6: The WQCD does not have jurisdiction over land lease, use of public land and groundwater impacts as related to mine operations. Groundwater issues at mining operations are under the jurisdiction of the DRMS in accordance with SB181. In response to the comment the Division coordinated with DRMS to clarify whether the site is subject to their authority for possible groundwater impacts at the site in accordance with SB181. DRMS indicated that most of the Uranium mines in this vicinity were permitted the 1970's and early 1980's. At that time, groundwater issues were typically only minimally addressed at these locations as groundwater was negligible and none of the sites were displaying obvious groundwater problems. DRMS clarified that prior to the promulgation of HB 08 -1161, Uranium mines were not automatically considered designated mining operations (DMO) and were therefore not required to develop an environmental protection plan (EPP) which more specifically required groundwater information and protection as part of the EPP submittal. Subsequent to the statutory changes resulting from HB 08 -1161, these sites are now DMO's by statute and subject to