U.S. Energy to meet with state water inspectors over Coal Creek issue

How safe is the water?

U.S. Energy Corp. will be meeting Friday with representatives from the state’s Water Quality Control Division to get some clarification of the state’s pollution concerns. The mining company responded last week to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment over concerns Coal Creek is being polluted with heavy metals from the mine on Mt. Emmons.

The response basically disagrees with the ultimate conclusions of the state. “In short, U.S. Energy disagrees with the Division’s suggestion that stormwater discharges from the Mt. Emmons Project are causing or threatening to cause degradation of Coal Creek,” a letter dated January 11 from the mining company states.
The state had sent U.S. Energy a “Compliance Advisory Letter” at the end of December warning of “possible violations of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act.” It demanded the company formulate a plan to bring down the levels of heavy metals measured in the creek and have a progress report ready by February 1. Sampling over the last few years on the mine property showed huge spikes in the heavy metal levels in Coal Creek.
“There are points and issues the company agrees with in the state’s letter,” explained Mount Emmons Moly Company director of community relations Perry Anderson. “US Energy is working with the state’s water quality division to address the issues. There are issues that were suggested that we agree with and we’ve adjusted the Stormwater Management Plan accordingly. Other issues we question and we are asking for clarification. We are meeting with the state this Friday [January 21]. US Energy is meeting with representatives from the division and MEMCO [Mt. Emmons Moly Co.] reps will attend the meeting as well.”
Anderson said the mining company wanted to be very clear that it felt there is not a major problem. “Again, Crested Butte drinking water was not and is not threatened by the stormwater runoff,” he emphasized. “The Compliance Advisory separately noted that samples collected and reported to the Water Quality Control Division by U.S. Energy, showed two metals in high concentration present in the stormwater. U.S. Energy is not required to “treat” stormwater under its discharge permit. There is no evidence that the water quality in Coal Creek has been adversely affected by stormwater discharges.”
The mine company states in its response letter that because the current facility is considered an “inactive mine,” it doesn’t fall under the state permit since the permit establishes Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) requirements for “active mines” only.
The response letter, written by U.S. Energy vice president of engineering Fred Craft, also cites several reasons that “U.S. Energy does not believe that modifications to the SWMP are required to further address non-stormwater discharges.”
“More importantly, water quality in Coal Creek is not being adversely affected by discharges from the Mount Emmons Project,” the letter continues. “Just because heavy metals are detected at these monitoring points, doesn’t mean Coal Creek itself is receiving such concentrations.”
The letter states that “Occasional exceedances of Coal Creek water quality standards in samples collected… are not an indication of degraded water quality in Coal Creek, nor do they constitute violations… of the permit.”
HCCA sees the response as incomplete. “U.S. Energy is saying they have pollutants at their site and they are reaching Coal Creek. But they are saying it’s not illegal and it’s not all their problem,” HCCA executive director Dan Morse said.
“While we recognize that there could possibly be some technical loopholes in the law that could make some part of that pollution legal, that doesn’t make it any better,” Morse said. “It doesn’t make it good for the creek or good for the people downstream.”
Morse said the response isn’t one expected from a good neighbor. “For a company that claims to be an upstanding member of the community, doing the bare minimum to maintain the levels of pollution in the creek is absolutely not good enough,” said Morse. “We intend to be communicating with the state Water Quality Control Division to make sure the discharges are legal but more importantly, to make Coal Creek better. It needs to be cleaner. We don’t want a barely good enough creek—that’s not really acceptable.”
Anderson concluded, “We at MEMCO and U.S. Energy take very seriously the need to maintain and protect the water quality, including that associated with the existing and inactive mine site, as part of the ongoing efforts to coordinate the development of a modern mining project.”
For a look at the complete response letter, click here .