A hard look at the plan is in order…
U.S. Energy formally filed an amended VCUP (Voluntary Cleanup Plan) application for the old Keystone Mine site with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) on February 5. U.S. Energy (USE) was compelled to do so after issues were brought to light with the original VCUP application at the end of 2013 and the state decided that the application was not appropriate.
The amended application, dated January 31, is similar to the original plan but does not include any work on U.S. Forest Service land. That land is where the current water treatment plant is located.
The application also mentions a proposed Plan of Operations for a potential molybdenum mine that USE wants to pursue in the future. That fact was left out of the 2013 VCUP application. The new proposal continues to call for sealing the existing mine shafts and utilizing a passive water treatment system to treat mine adit water from the old mine.
“The successful operation of passive water treatment systems in wintry environments much more severe than those expected at the site are well documented, including sites north of the Arctic Circle in Norway and northern Canada,” the application states.
The CDPHE has made it clear that they do not yet have everything they need to make a decision on the application. According to CDPHE information specialist Katherine Lemon, U.S. Energy reapplied for a VCUP on February 5. CDPHE will either approve or not approve the application within a 45-day time period. “Full approval of the application will be contingent on receiving the following from U.S. Energy: a monitoring plan, a contingency plan and an engineering design plan for the bulkheads,” she explained.
High Country Citizens’ Alliance executive director Greg Dyson said the environmental organization’s first priority is to review the application to make sure it is complete. From there, a hard look at the substance is in order.
“The VCUP could be a good thing in the end,” he said. “But it needs to be done in a way that is protective of the community and its water. So we need to conduct an in-depth analysis of the VCUP, how it would work in this particular situation. We want to have our experts really take a look at it. Under the guidelines, there isn’t a lot of time to do a thorough analysis but we’ll work diligently to analyze the VCUP.”
The Crested Butte Town Council held an executive session to discuss USE and its offer to look at “a proposal” from the town. They also discussed the new VCUP application at the council meeting.
“We are not even close to submitting any meaningful sort of proposal to end the situation with U.S. Energy,” said mayor Aaron Huckstep. “We don’t have enough information.”
The council agreed and asked the town manager and town attorney to contact USE to see if a face-to-face meeting could be arranged to flesh out details of what both sides might need to move ahead with a any sort of final solution proposal. Huckstep said such an outcome would have to result in the relinquishing of mineral rights by USE. The council made it clear they would have to include its partners, the HCCA and the Red Lady Coalition in discussions.
As far as the VCUP, town attorney John Belkin reminded the council that it could have a quasi-judicial role in any VCUP since a watershed permit would definitely have to be obtained before work on a VCUP is begun. So while the town would probably be constrained in its comments to the CDPHE about the VCUP, it could demand expert analysis of the plan as part of the town permitting process if the state allows a VCUP.
Local resident and state reclamation specialist Tara Tafi advised the council they would need at least three experts to evaluate a VCUP: an engineer, a biochemist and hydrologist. “These are complicated issues,” she said.
“The complication is not lost on the council,” responded Huckstep. “We understand we’ll need some expert help.”
Under the state VCUP process, local stakeholders have until mid-March to complete a review and submit comments.