Laserfiche WebLink
Para. 13. - The sentence discussing "additional" remediation projects that SGC "may" notify <br /> the Division of, and that may have a "positive" impact on water quality is vague and not <br /> connected to any assurance that downstream water quality will actually be "improved," CRS <br /> 25-8-102(2), let alone "protected." A "positive" impact on water quality is in no way <br /> equivalent to a guarantee that water quality will be protected. In addition, the built-in <br /> discretion for SGC is too broad. <br /> Para. 14 - This section is at the heart of the CD. Overall, there is no assurance that adverse <br /> water quality impacts associated with the Sunnyside operations, including the sealing of the <br /> tunnels, will all manifest within the limited five year period. It is common knowledge that <br /> acid mine drainage often appears, or at lease: worsens, over a much longer time period than <br /> the five years stated in the CD. Based on the proposed CD, SGC is released from liability <br /> under the Clean Water Act (i.e., for the seeps and springs) if the Reference Point quality is <br /> acceptable after roughly five years. What happens if additional quality impacts occur after <br /> that time? <br /> The state should not consent to such a sweeping release. Continued monitoring over a <br /> much longer time period is required in order to ensure that water quality will indeed be <br /> protected. It is very possible that contaminated water will not reach the Reference Point <br /> within five years. More importantly, the CD does not discuss whether water backfilling <br /> behind the tunnel seals will result in additional chemical reactions with increased acid mine <br /> drainage. A release of permit obligations (and covenants not to sue) should not be made <br /> without an assurance that the water quality at the Reference Point at the end of five years (or <br /> slightly longer) will not be degraded further due to any actions regarding the Sunnyside mine <br /> and related facilities. <br /> In addition, the ability of SGC to transfer the permit in paragraph d. also unnecessarily <br /> waives SGC's obligations. A transfer of the permit should not be able to be construed as <br /> limiting the requirement that the flows from the American tunnel are completely eliminated <br /> over the long-term. It should be noted that similar sealing actions at Summitville failed the <br /> first time and required large expenditures of monies to eventually correct. <br /> Para. 16.a. - The term "feasible" must be defined. If it can mean economic feasibility, then <br /> that would be an unacceptable deference to SGC. The protection of water quality should not <br /> be determined by a company's financial determinations. Water quality protection measures <br /> must be based on technical feasibility, not on the company's bottom line. <br /> Para. 16.b. - The "or" on the top line of p. 23 should be an "and" in order to correctly track <br /> the rest of the CD (see p. 31 for correct form). Otherwise, compliance with the "reclamation <br /> standards" would be discretionary with the company - something not allowed by the CD. <br /> Para. 18. - The limitation of treatment to only 2.5 years severely undermines the entire <br /> proposal. What happens to contaminated discharges after that time? In addition, does the <br /> 1800 gpm treatment capacity account for the likely maximum flow (rain on snow event <br /> 3 <br />