Laserfiche WebLink
<br />• Page 2 <br />December 14, 1998 <br />We do not believe that the "TR-15 Response Plan" submitted by BMRI in November has done so. Our <br />specific concerns are as follows. <br />Ground Water and Surface Standards Have Been Violated <br />BMRI and the DMG have recognized the ongoing violation of ground water quality standards <br />established by BMRI's permit conditions. It is a matter of fact that BMRI has not been meeting ground <br />water standards at M-11 R. The duration, significance, and penalization for these violations have not <br />been discussed at length. We have summarized the extent of these violations below. <br />In addition to those ground water quality violations that the MLRB is expected to address at the <br />hearing, a plain read of Tables A-1 - A-3 indicates that BMRI, the DMG and the MLRB have <br />overlooked certain surface water standard violations.' In fact, the November "TR-15 Response Plan" <br />incorcecUy states that, "at no time have the in-stream values exceeded stream standards for the Rito <br />Seco."~ As our summary will describe, since as early as 1994 Manganese concentration in the Rito <br />Seco have not complied with state water quality standards. <br />A) Ground Water <br />1) M-11R <br />M-11R is a monitoring well established by BMRI to monitor ground water cmditions in the <br />Santa Fe Conglomerate. Its placement was specfied to monitor the quality of drainage water from the <br />west pit and is a point of compliance under BMRI's permit with the DMG. M-11 R was installed in 1996 <br />as a replacement well for M-11. M-11, placed in the Rito Seco Alluvium formation, was replaced <br />because of apparent problems with iron producing bacteria. <br />a) TDS <br />On July 28`" BMRI San Luis Project Manager Ron Zumwalt notified the Division of Minerals <br />and Geology (a.k.a. DMG or the Division) that monitoring 2sults from monitoring well Mt11 R were out <br />of compliance with BMRI's permit conditions (613 mg/L). M-11 R measured a TDS level 0f 661 mglL on <br />July 6, 1998. <br />By August 17d', the Division's records indicate that if the permit requirement re-sample of M- <br />11R exceeded permit condition value, "the Division may issue BMRI a notice of possi~e violation for <br />exceeding TDS perrnit condition values (pursuant to TR-15)."' The re-sampling found T S levels to be <br />higher, measuring 772 mglL on August 10d', 1998 and 696 on August 20°i, 1998. BMRI Was reminded <br />of the potential violation notice in a letter from the Division, on August 31, 1998." <br />On September 2nd, BMRI notified the Division that further re-sampling from M~11R identified <br />high TDS levels. Surveys on August 27d' recorded a TDS level of 720 mg/L.s <br />BMRI's response to the Division's August 17~ letter agreed to provide a response plan in a <br />timely manner, It also noted the Division's ability to issue a violation in light of recent dircumstances. <br />BMRI noted, "the uncertainty surrounding the cause of the elevated TDS levels and whether such data <br />provides an accurate reflection of groundwater quality, we believe this consideration would be <br />'BMRI, November 1998, TR-IS Response Plan, Tables A-2 and A-3. <br />= BMRI, November 1998, TR-1 S Response Plan, page I5. <br />3 James Dillie, August 17, 1998, Memo to Bruce Humphries and lames Stevens. <br />James Dillie, August 31, 1998, Letter to Ron Zumwalt. <br />s Ron Zumwalt, September 2, 1998, Letter to Jim Dillie. <br />