Laserfiche WebLink
Para. 4.g. - The "Reclamation Standards" listed as controlling future compliance ignores <br /> additional requirements under Rule 3 of the MLRB Rules. Namely, Rules 3.1.6 (Water), <br /> 3.1.7 (Ground Water), and 3.1.8 (Wildlife). Without meeting the requirements of these Rules, <br /> actions by the permittee are in violation of the Mined Land Act (and Rules). Thus, this <br /> section must be revised to include a mandatory requirement that all relevant MLRB Rules be <br /> met as part of compliance with the CD and permits. <br /> Para. 8.c. - The waiver of the state's authority to require permits for the seeps and springs <br /> after termination of the existing and proposed permits unnecessarily restricts state <br /> prerogatives. This issue will be discussed in more depth in later paragraphs. <br /> Para. 9.a. - The last sentence of this paragraph's release of SGC's liability if there is any <br /> maintenance of the downstream portion of the American Tunnel is too broad. This release <br /> could be used to nullify other conditions of the CD which require CDPS permit obligations <br /> for the tunnel. <br /> Para. 9.b. - The waiver of SGC's liability for subsequent water quality changes is also too <br /> broad. As noted below, the proposed five year timeframe (after tunnel sealing) does not <br /> account for long-term water quality impacts resulting, or potentially resulting, from the site. <br /> Thus, a long-term liability and financial assurance mechanism must remain in place during <br /> the period in which water quality changes may occur. In addition, does this section imply <br /> that SGC or its heirs, assigns, etc. would not be liable under CERCLA? A statement should <br /> be added which makes clear that CERCLA liability is in no way waived by this CD and <br /> permits. Also, it should be stated that there will be public notice and review of the Division's <br /> "confirmation" that SGC has fulfilled all of its obligations noted in this section. <br /> Para. 9.c. - The CD should discuss the environmental impacts associated with the Cement <br /> Creek diversion. In addition, this section assumes that the quality of the Cement Creek <br /> waters are equivalent to the quality of the American Tunnel waters - with no supporting <br /> documentation. If the quality of Cement Creek is worse (i.e., increased metals loading), than <br /> a corresponding adjustment of flows must be made in order to ensure that the downstream <br /> quality is not degraded during the timeframes discussed in this section. Also, SGC must do <br /> more than just "notice" the Division of the decrease or stoppage of the Cement Creek <br /> diversion. The state should have complete oversight and approval authority over all important <br /> actions undertaken as part of this CD. <br /> Para. 10.a.(i) - The "or" in the first two sentences should be an "and" to avoid the chance that <br /> flows in the tunnel could continue. <br /> Para. 10.a.(vii) - It should be noted that the MLR permit cannot be "released" until <br /> reclamation at the site is completed. Under MLRB Rules, "reclamation includes all measures <br /> taken to assure the protection of water resources, including costs to cover necessary water <br /> quality protection, treatment and monitoring as may be required by Permit, these Rules or the <br /> Act." MLRB Rule 4.2.1.(4). <br /> 2 <br />