Laserfiche WebLink
V <br />Climax 1Climax Mine <br />Hwy 91 — Fremont Pass <br />Climax, CO 80429 <br />A Freeport-McMoRan Company Phone (719) 486-2150 <br />Fax (719) 486-2251 <br />Sent by Certified Mail /� <br />November 3, 2017 "t-Ci / i <br />eD <br />Wallace H. Erickson #0V <br />Senior Environmental Protection Specialist DNjg 0 8 Z0�% <br />Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety '�N�r <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 MIN�jyGgNDSAF6� ON <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Re: DBMS October 20, 2017 Letter in re: Notice of Rule 3.1.7(4), Groundwater Quality Standards, <br />Climax Mine, Permit No. M-1977-493 <br />Dear Mr. Erickson: <br />This letter is to acknowledge receipt of the Division's October 20, 2017 letter referenced above and to <br />confirm our meeting scheduled for November 7, 2017. This is to also identify the issues on which CIimax <br />seeks clarification as to the Division's intent. The third paragraph of the letter states that: <br />"at this time and superseding any prior permit conditions, the numeric <br />protection levels will be equivalent to the [CBSG table value standards, and] <br />This includes the 0.05 mg/L standard for manganese which is currently <br />exceeded in the Eagle and Arkansas River watersheds." <br />This paragraph appears to impose standards and to revise the Climax permit, and its Environmental Protection <br />Plan (EPP) and Water Quality Monitoring Plan (WQMP), without following the necessary procedural steps to <br />amend the mine's permit. There are several procedural steps the Division must follow before it could revise <br />the permit, amend the EPP and WQMP, revise any existing Numeric Protection Levels (NPLs), and impose <br />new NPLs. Until the permit is revised pursuant to applicable procedures, only the NPLs currently set forth in <br />the permit are applicable. Does the Division disagree? <br />The fourth paragraph of the letter references the notice provisions in Rule section 3.1.7(4). As the Division <br />knows, Climax does not agree with the views stated in the second paragraph of the letter. Nevertheless, <br />Climax is open to the path suggested by the Division and intends to provide a plan within 90 days as <br />requested in the fourth paragraph. <br />However, before Climax proceeds further, we respectfully request the Division to clarify an important issue: <br />Is there a final action of the Division set forth in any of the paragraphs of the letter that if one contested would <br />require an appeal to the MLRB within 30 days of the date of the letter? <br />Thank you in advance for the Division's consideration and for taking time to discuss these issues with us. <br />Sincerely, <br />Raymond Lazuk <br />Environmental Manager <br />ov <br />