ENFORCE29029 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

f~oo7 12/10/98 THU 18:15 FAb • • MLR$ permit for TDS and Sulfate, at a minimum, are being violated. ~ Such violations should be immediately noticed by the MLRB with the enforcement of appropriately substafitial civil penalties and detailed and enforceable corrective action.2 The Current Ground Water Permit Conditions Are Not Protective of Actual Site Conditions It should be noted that the current MLRB permit conditions for ground w~ter quality are not represrntative of actual site conditions. Specifically, the ground water quality levels are based on domestic use standards, not surface water rechazge levels. PASS had repeatedly argued to DMG statF in 1994 and 1997 that ground water levels based on domestic use did not account for the likelihood that ground water flowing from the pit would reach the Rito Seco reek. DMG rejected this based on its assumption that such recharge of the Creek would not o~cur from the Pit flow. As shown by the new data, however, such an assumption is wrong. Both the September, 1998 Halepaska and November, 1998 BMRI Reports admit that flows from the est Pit reach the Creek and Creek alluvium. Stream recharge is one of the "reasonably foreseeabl "ground water "uses" upon which the MLRB sets permit conditions. The permit conditions m be modified to account for this -the actual use of the water flowing from the West Pit. Accordi gly, the ground water protective levels in the MLRB permit must be based on the stream standaz~s for the Creek as established by the Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC). In fairness to BMRI, the violations to be enforced at the upcoming MLRB hearing should be based on the current permit conditions based on the current, albeit incorrect gr~und water quality levels. However, at this hearing, the MLRB should revise the levels base on the correct t Although the Notice of Violation is apparently limited to violations of TDS limns, recent data from BMRI show that the ground water permit level for Sulfate is also above the tandazd (i.e., MLRB level of 250 mg/1; October 2, 1998, sampling result of 374.s mg/l). Based on this exceedence, the DMG should immediately begin the accelerated sampling for Su] to as required by the MLRB pemit. Also, an as noted below, other data showing exceedrnces manganese should trigger the DMG accelerated review. = Of potentially greater concern are the pollution levels in the seep discovered in 1 to October. According to BMRi's own data, that water exceeds stream standards for mangane ,sulfate, and possibly other parameters. ~ November 2, 1998, letter from BMRI (Anne Baldr dge) to Kathy Dolan, Colorado Water Quality Control Division (WQCD). In that letter, BMRI dmitted that: "The seep was flowing at approximately 10 to 1 S gallons per minute and discharg d into the Rito Seco." Attached to that November 2nd Letter were lab results of a sample taken of at seep. Among other parameters analyzed, the results show that manganese (dissolved) w at 2.444 mg/1. The receiving stream, the Rito Seco, is currently classified for a number of benefi ial uses. The applicable standard for manganese is .OS mg/I. [n addition to this exceedence, the same data results showed that sulfate was at 583.8 mgl1, well above the applicable standard of 250. At a minimum, these concerns should be immediately investigated by the DMG and M~.RB, as well as the WQCD.