Sunnyside Gold Corp. has sent a letter that stirs up an elephant-in-the-room quandary for those invested in the health of the Animas River: take $10 million now for water treatment in the Upper Animas Basin or take your chances with the Environmental Protection Agency.<\/p>\n
Kinross Gold Corp. \u2013 an international mining conglomerate which bought Sunnyside in 2003 \u2013 for some time has offered $10 million to improve water quality from leaking mines north of Silverton on the condition the company is absolved of any further responsibility for cleanup in the district. In the past, that proposal has been general in terms of what those funds could be used for. But on Oct. 5, Sunnyside spokesman and Silverton native Larry Perino sent a letter to members of the Animas River Stakeholders Group that deemed a permanent lime treatment plant \u201cthe best apparent\u201d solution, which he claimed has the support of many local and state officials. He then reminded stakeholders that Sunnyside\u2019s $10 million is ready to go.<\/p>\n
The vast Sunnyside Mine network leaks about 100 gallons of acid mine drainage per minute out of the bulkheaded American Tunnel. However, many believe increased flows of mine waste water from nearby adits \u2013 including the Gold King Mine \u2013 is a result of backed up water tables within Sunnyside. Officials for the company have long maintained that if the mining district is designated a Superfund, it would then redirect those funds toward litigation. Perino told The Durango Herald that Kinross Gold Corp. believes a \u201ccollaborative approach will result in a timely and cost-effective improvements \u2026 in contrast to a stigmatic Superfund listing.\u201d<\/p>\n
As a result, the offer poses a difficult situation. Those in support of taking the mining company\u2019s $10 million see it as a guaranteed sum immediately available \u2013 as opposed to the option of the EPA\u2019s Superfund designation, which leaves many unknowns in terms of funding.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt might be better to get a lime treatment plant in place while we continue to look at other options,\u201d said Steve Fearn, an ARSG coordinator and mining advocate. \u201cIt addresses that immediate issue, and might be good for all the communities.\u201d<\/p>\n
It is the EPA\u2019s goal of any Superfund site to find any Potentially Responsible Parties and hold them financially liable for remediation in relation to a hazardous cleanup. All agree, the situation north of Silverton is a complicated, issue with questions over geology, ownership and accountability. But Sunnyside, with its major mine workings, and therefore sizable acidic discharge, could be high atop that list.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt can be a very lengthy process,\u201d admitted Doug Jamison, of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. He added remediation can take place during negotiations, and that price tag can be recouped from potentially responsible parties down the line. \u201cTheir offer\u2019s been on table for a while, but it might not be enough to head the idea (of cleanup).\u201d<\/p>\n
Peter Butler, a coordinator for the ARSG, said the situation has led to \u201ckind of a big dance\u201d between the EPA and the mining corporation.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think the EPA\u2019s stance is, \u2018We don\u2019t know if $10 million is a reasonable number,\u2019\u201d he said. \u201cI don\u2019t think they\u2019re ready to negotiate until they collect more information, and that\u2019s what they\u2019ve been doing.\u201d<\/p>\n
Since 1991, Sunnyside has spent more than $15 million in reclamation efforts, and the company thought it was off the hook after a \u2018consent decree\u2019 with the state\u2019s Water Quality Control Division was met in the early 2000s. However, Jamison said his department\u2019s attorney reviewed the settlement, and found no mention of liability in terms of a Superfund designation. \u201cIt\u2019s a different law,\u201d he said. \u201c(Sunnyside) was relieved of their liability from a discharge permit under the Clean Water Act. It has nothing to do with Superfund liability.\u201d<\/p>\n
Even so, many question whether a lime treatment plant is the best option, because of its expensive operational costs that would need to be maintained in perpetuity. The EPA recently flipped the switch at a $1.5 million temporary lime treatment plant for the Gold King Mine that will last the winter, while local, state and federal agencies attempt to reach a consensus on a long-term solution. The facility costs about $16,000 a week to maintain.<\/p>\n