ENFORCE22868 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• t~aos 12/LO/98 THl1 18:18 F.~1S • Sulfates from the backfilled material. Again, even of true, such worsening of water quality is the result of direct company action. Thus, BMRI is responsible for any resulting change in the hydrology and water quality. In addition, the nearest surface water monitoring point, RS-2, located downstream from the seep and pit inflow areas, has reported a notable increase in manganese levels. ~In the November Report subtnirted by BMRI (Table A-2), the company acknowledged that signi$rcant differences in water quality before, during, and after mining has occurred. For example, the pie-mining manganese level averaged 0.041 mg/1. Dwing mining it averaged 0.026 mg/1. ~iowever, the post- mining level has averaged 0.160, with a high of 0.426 mg/1. An even higher reeding, at 0.611 mg/1 was discounted in the averaging when BMRI labeled it as a "data outlier." Remember that the applicable manganese standard is 0.05 mg/1 for the Rito Seco. Despite these numbers in the company's own report, BMRI maintains t "at no time have the in-stream values exceeded the stream standards for the Rito Seco." BMRI N vember Report at p. 15. This does not make sense since the company's data admits that mangane a levels, at a minimum, are being violated directly downstream from the West Pit area. It is disturbing to read BMRI's position on this issue. Apparently, it belibves that such water quality changes should be handled by a relaxation of ground water compli ce standards. It phrases this position as calling for the need to examine "potential inappropriate erring of compliance standards." November 1998 BMRI Report at p. 13. We agree that the compliance standazds are inappropriate, but for the op stte reasons as BMRI. As noted above, the compliance standards aze "inappropriate" because ey aze currently too weak, not too stringent (i.e., they are based on domestic use levels, not the ~°re factually correct surface water protective/recherge levels). Any azgument by the company) that ground water compliance levels, or surface water quality levels for that matter, should be rel d to account for the now co-mingled aquifers ignores the basic duties placed on operators by the fined Land Act and Rules. III. The MLR$ Should Raise the Current Financial Assnrance Level to account for the Increased Water Pumpieg, Monitoring and Other Project Activities BMRi has proposed, and is appazently already undertaking, short and lon term actions to further investigate and remediate site conditions. For example, the company is c~urently operating a collection and pumping system to retrieve some of the water seeping into the Rito Seco. In ~ a addition, BMRI is proposing a network of monitoring wells and other site activit(es as a result of-,t~ , the water quality problems. Under the Act and Rules, such activities must be co~rered by the p~ financial assurance held by the MLRB. (7 Since these activities are not covered by the existing financial asswance, jhe MLRB must raise the assurance to account for these additional costs. As a simple matter, if the costs to operate these facilities are not covered by the existing assurance, then neither BMRI nor t~re DMG/MLRB should expect the public to be responsible for their operation. In addition, the DN4G/MLRB