2018-04-10_REVISION - M1977493 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Porzak Browning & Bushong LLP A t t o r n e y s a t 9 L a w 212013th Street, Boulder, Co 80302 Glenn E. Forzak Steven J. Bushong Kristin H. Moseley Kevin J. Kinnear Karen L. Henderson Corina A. Hach April 10, 2018 Cassidy L. Woodard Via E -Mail: Eric.Scott@state. co. its Eric Scott, A.G., R.G. Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety 1313 Sherman St., Rm 215 Denver, CO 80203 Re: Climax Revised Water Quality Management Plan, TR -27 Dear Mr. Scott, Michael F. Browning OfCounsel 303 443.6800 Tel. 303 443.6864 Fax. www.pbblaw.com Please find attached comments prepared by Leonard Rice Engineers ("LRE") on behalf of the Eagle Park Reservoir Company (the "Reservoir Company") regarding the Climax Mine Water Quality Monitoring Plan (TR -27). This letter is intended to help put the LRE comments, and the Reservoir Company's concerns, into a broader factual and regulatory context. The Reservoir Company operates a water supply reservoir immediately downstream of the Climax mine boundary. The reservoir is used directly and indirectly for water supply purposes, snowmaking and other beneficial uses of water through -out the Eagle River basin. Ensuring the continued quality of the reservoir is of paramount importance to the Reservoir Company and the downstream users of the water. Although surface water quality is currently very good in the reservoir, concerns exist given that the Climax mine has started operating again. As you know, the mine is the world's largest molybdenum mine and there have been water quality issues in the past. The Reservoir Company has expressed concerns over the use of NPLs based upon the interim narrative ground water standards, as that will result in limits that, with the exception of manganese, far exceed ambient groundwater conditions and allow degradation of water quality. Although these concerns remain, the LRE comments are more limited in scope. These comments focus on addressing Climax's proposed elimination of certain monitoring requirements and on having meaningful detection limits for certain parameters. We do not believe there is any justification to eliminate all surface water and ground water monitoring for arsenic, mercury and silver. Further, having detection limits for these metals that are too high to determine existing ambient quality, and that are between 10 — 125 times greater than applicable surface water standards, renders the data of little use for protecting adjacent surface water quality since significant degradation could occur without detection.