Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />for the Carlton tunnel discharge. However, these figures <br />underestimate the contributions from crushed rock, which could <br />have hundreds of times more surface area than in situ rock. <br />4. HCI used humidity cell test results for their modeled <br />calculations. However, HC tests do not measure cumulative <br />effects of acid (or metals) production; they measure single <br />contact with an already weathered rock, only. It would be <br />more appropriate to use results of Long term batch tests. <br />IV. OTHER ISSUES <br />Surface Water <br />Arequa Gulch spring is low pH and high in metals. Also, <br />seepage from the base of old waste rock dumps is acidic and <br />high in metals. Are these representative of the water quality <br />that will evolve from waste rock? what data do we have to <br />indicate other water quality will be different? <br />Groundwater Hydrology <br />Roosevelt Tunnel is not included in the discharge <br />considerations. How much of the total flow is omitted; how <br />does hydrologic balance work out with Roosevelt Tunnel <br />discharge included, and does this affect conclusions of <br />hydrologic balance? <br />V. DATA NEEDS <br />a. Carlton discharge water chemistry (above equilibration zone). <br />(I am told that some of this may be in the files. If what is <br />included in the HCI (1993) report is not complete, we need to <br />find what else exists in the files. <br />b. Carlton NPDES discharge limit (below equilibration zone). <br />This should be in the NPDES permit, which I could not find in <br />DMG files. <br />c. Chemistry of Long Term Batch Tests for representative samples <br />from waste rock storage areas. Such tests have not been <br />conducted. <br />cc: Berhan Keffelew <br />