2012-02-29_REVISION - M1978039HR (3)

Home Browse Search

Page 6 of 9 S. Objection: The Division should require the Operator to demonstrate how collection of storm water in waste rock areas will affect leachate and demonstrate the best management practices that will be used to minimize percolation of storm water into the waste rock. The Division should also address waste rock berms that direct storm water towards Big Gypsum Creek. August 2009 Letter, 3. The Division's Response: The mine is subject to an existing CDPHE stormwater management permit and plan, which require regular monitoring and maintenance. Stormwater control structures are designed to meet the 100 -year, 24 -hour precipitation event. There is little to no runoff from the site due to the arid climate, and unless there is a significant precipitation event, runoff will not reach Big Gypsum Creek. Big Gypsum Creek is an intermittent stream, tributary to the Dolores River. The creek is over one -half mile from the closest portion of the site, and is nearly always dry. The Dolores River is approximately five miles from the site. Further, the setting for the permitted area is arid, with potential evaporation far exceeding actual precipitation amounts. The site contains maintained stormwater control structures that were installed before this EPP Amendment in accordance with WQCD and BLM requirements. Given the coarse - textured development rock (sandstone waste rock), the normally low amount of precipitation typically evaporates before it can percolate or run off, which reduces adverse impacts to ground and surface water. 6. Objection: The Operator has stated that it will monitor down - gradient wells and will take additional actions if the ambient water quality is degraded. The Division should require Operator to develop such a plan now. August 2009 Letter, 4. The Division's Response: At the time this issue was raised by Objectors, the EPP required two monitoring wells. It now requires a groundwater monitoring plan, which includes six wells, which the operator will construct and sample throughout the life of the permit. The groundwater monitoring plan is thoroughly described above. The BLM was actively involved in the designation of well locations in the monitoring program. The EPP meets the requirements of the Act and Rules, further contingency plans are unnecessary and inappropriate at this time. Coordination of EPP Review with Other Agencies (Interagency Memoranda of Understanding) 7. Objection: The Division should review the Amendment in coordination with EPA (regarding air quality issues) and the Water Quality Control Division ( "WQCD "). September 2011 Letter, 2. The Division's Response: Throughout the EPP review process, the Division frequently communicated with other agencies, especially in discussing areas of mutual jurisdiction and consistency of plan requirements. The Division has proceeded in accordance with all applicable MOUs. CDPHE Air Pollution Control Division permit number 07SM1140 (regarding ventilation of underground workings) is included as EPP Attachment D. WQCD CDPS - Stormwater permit no. COR- 040223 is included as EPP Attachment F. EPA's Compliance Plan (regarding monitoring, recording and reporting of "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants" (NESHAPs)) is included as EPP Attachment L. 8. Objection: The Sunday Mine Complex is the subject of an ongoing baseline characterization and monitoring program mandated by the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") as part of its obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act ( "NEPA "). The Sunday Mine Complex is also within the scope of the ongoing Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement ( "PEIS ") that is being prepared for the Department of Energy's Uranium Leasing Program ( "ULP "). The