Laserfiche WebLink
during spring runoff), as it should? What happens to compliance requirements for the other <br /> sites in the event of premature termination? If there is premature termination, what about <br /> seeps and springs that will develop after the tunnel is sealed? These questions must be <br /> addressed in the revised CD and permits. <br /> Para. 19. - The CD should require that in the event of premature termination, the existing <br /> tunnel permits must not only remain in effect but must be renewed. As noted in comments to <br /> Para. 18, under the Division's correct legal position, seeps and springs that develop under the <br /> premature termination scenario must be covered under new discharge permits. <br /> Para. 20-22. - As noted earlier, the lack of any assurance that water quality will not worsen <br /> after the terms of Para. 14 are met seriously undermines the entire CD. No waiver of the <br /> right to require CDPS point source permits (or covenants not to sue) should be given based <br /> on the currently inadequate limited five year scenario. <br /> Para. 24 (and Appendix B and attached draft permits for "mitigation") - The entire CD is <br /> based on new CDPS permits for the up-drainage "mitigation" sites as a means to hopefully <br /> offset the impacts from the pollution contained in the downstream seeps and springs that will <br /> develop upon tunnel sealing. However, these sites should already have been covered by <br /> traditional NPDES/CDPS point source permits. See EPA Policy contained in Dec. 22, 1993 <br /> letter from Max Dodson to Montana Water Quality agency (copy to Colorado WQCD). <br /> The company cannot utilize the cleanup of the upstream sites as a cover for its <br /> downstream pollution since the company (and other owners) are liable for the pollution <br /> discharging from the adits, piles, workings, etc. at these sites. The proper action is to <br /> require these sites to obtain traditional permits, meet water quality requirements at the sites, <br /> and then resolve the Sunnyside mine problems. Merging the sites into one overall cleanup <br /> plan ignores the Clean Water Act's requirement that these upstream sites should have been <br /> permitted long ago. According to EPA requirements, the existing "storm water only" permits <br /> are inapplicable to the mine drainage currently being discharged from these sites. <br /> Para. 25. - The CD lacks any discussion as to whether the $5 million financial assurance will <br /> cover all environmental and reclamation requirements discussed in the CD. Without firm <br /> assurances that these monies are sufficient to remediate all water quality impacts, the CD <br /> must be rejected. <br /> Para. 26. - The force majeure provisions are extremely broad. At a minimum, increased <br /> pollution loadings and stream flows not anticipated in the CD should be excluded from <br /> coverage under this section. <br /> Para. 31. - The problems noted with the overly broad covenants not to sue are discussed <br /> above. As such, they should be rejected. In any event, the CD must reiterate that this section <br /> cannot in any way be construed as a concession of the Division's authority to bring these <br /> types of suits in the future in Colorado. <br /> 4 <br />