ENFORCE22868 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

12i1-~0/98 1TtU 18:15 F.~1S X001 • • ~` ~~ MLRB pettnit for TDS and Sulfate, at a minimum, are being violated.` Such violations should be ,~ immediately noticed by the MLRB with the enforcement of appropriately subst$ntial civil penalties and detailed and enforceable corrective action= The Current Ground Water Permit Conditions Are Not Protective of Acttal Site Conditions It should be noted that the current MLRB permit conditions for ground water quality aze not representative of actual site conditions. Specifically, the ground water quali~y levels are based on domestic use standards, not surface water recharge levels. PASS had repeatedly argued to - `,,~ DMG staff in 1994 and 1997 that ground water levels based on domestic use dir~ not account for ajy `~ the likelihood that ground water flowing from the pit would reach the Rito Seco ((Creek. DMG , J rejected this based on its assumption that such rechazge of the Creek would not occur from the Pit flow. As shown by the new data, however, such an assumption is wrong. BothI the September, ~1 1998 Halepaska and November, 1998 BMRI Reports admit that flows from the ~/est Pit reach the 1''4 , n Creek and Creek alluvium. Stream recharge is one of the "reasonably foreseeablle" ground water ~ ~""' "uses" upon which the MLRB sets permit conditions. The permit conditions m t be modified to account for this -the actual use of the water flowing from the West Pit. Accord~gly, the ground water protective levels in the MLRB permit must be based on the stream standaz~ls for the Creek as ~ established by the Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC). ~~.~" 1n fairness to BMRI, the violations to be enforced at the upcoming MLR1~ hearing should ~1 be based on the current permit conditions based on the current, albeit incorrect and water t~ quality levels. However, at this hearing, the MLRB should revise the levels base~on the correct ` Although the Notice of Violation is apparently limited to violations of TDS 1' ts, recent data from BMRI show that the ground water permit level for Sulfate is also above the{standard (i.e.. MLRB level of250 mg/1.October 2, 1.998, sampling result of 374.s mgll). Base~on this exceedence, the DMG should immediately begin the accelerated sampling for Su fate as required '(UD'~ 3~ by the MLRB permit. Also, an as noted below, other data showing exceedences f manganese ~~Q~, .:-9 should trigger the DMG accelerated review. ~ u~ ,p~" t Of potentially greater coacem are the pollution levels is the seep discovered in to October. !~~ According to BMRI's own data, that water exceeds stream standards for mangan sc, sulfate, and possibly other parameters. ~e November 2, 1998, letter from BMRI (Anne Bal 'dge) to Kathy Dolan, Colorado Water Quality Control Division (WQCD). in that letter, BMRI dmitted that: "The seep was flowing at approximately 10 to 15 gallons per minute and dischar d into the Rito Seco" Attached to that November 2nd letter were lab resulu of a sample taken of (that seep. Among other parameters analyzed, the results show that manganese (dissolved) wlas at 2.444 mg/I. The receiving stream, the Rito Seco, is currently classified for a number of beneficial uses. The applicable standard for manganese is .OS mg/1. In addition to this exceedence, thc~ same data results showed that sulfate was at 583.8 mg/l, well above the applicable standard ~f 250. At a minimum, these concerns should be immediately investigated by the DMG and RB, as well as the WQCD.