Laserfiche WebLink
seven criteria as a prerequisite for a Permit Termination Assessment would be <br /> confusing and may appear to alter the intent of the Consent Decree. <br /> 2. Comment: Page 13, Paragraph 8.c. and Page 24, Paragraphs 22: EPA's position is <br /> that permits are required for discharges of groundwater tributary to surface water. <br /> Therefore, EPA's preference would be to remove all references to this issue from the <br /> Consent Decree. We understand that due to the nature of this case that may not be <br /> possible. Therefore, we would suggest the sentences on page 13, paragraph 8.c. and <br /> page 24, paragraphs 22 be removed and replaced with language as follows: "The <br /> Division agrees, based on the facts of this case, that in the event of a Successful <br /> Permit Termination Assessment pursuant to paragraph 14, no future CPDS [sic]point <br /> source permits will be required of SGC for seeps or springs which emerge or increase <br /> in the Upper Animas River or Cement Creek drainages following installation and <br /> closure of bulkhead seals in the American or Terry Tunnels. " <br /> Response: Seeps and springs are the central issue in this case, and therefore it would <br /> be impossible to delete references to them. SGC brought this declaratory judgment <br /> suit because it disagrees with the WQCD's position that seeps and springs which may <br /> emerge following installation of bulkhead seals in the mines's portals are enforceable <br /> against SGC as violations of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act as the discharge <br /> of pollutants to state waters form a point source without a permit. The WQCD does <br /> not concede this issue by entering into the Consent Decree. EPA's proposed language <br /> adds the words "the Division agrees, based on the facts of this case." This is not a <br /> substantive change and is already clear in the language of the Consent Decree. The <br /> Parties agree to make the requested change. <br /> 3. Comment: Page 13, Paragraph 9.a., Page 19, Paragraph 11 and Appendix B: The <br /> summary of work provides a brief discussion of the plugging of the Terry Tunnel. It <br /> does not mention the need to add buffering amendments to the fluid behind the <br /> bulkhead during the flooding of the workings. It was our understanding that this <br /> action was agreed upon as a means of raising the pH to reduce dissolved metal <br /> loading in the workings. This is a critical element of the mine plugging proposal and <br /> should be mentioned in the summary. <br /> Response: EPA incorrectly states that the summary of work does not mention the <br /> need to add buffering amendments to the fluid behind the bulkhead during the <br /> flooding of the workings. The summary of work, subparagraph b, mitigation <br /> projects, clearly states that SGC will complete all of the "A" list projects as set forth <br /> in Appendix B, one of which is the injection of alkaline water referred to here. The <br /> schedule established in section VII on pages 19-20 establishes when this mitigation <br /> project will be done. <br /> Comment: Prior to commencing injection of the alkaline water into the mine pool, <br /> approvals from the Underground Injection Control Program by a rule authorization or <br /> 2 <br /> i <br />