ENFORCE29029 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,12/1(~l98 THU 18:16 FAS • ~ 009 Sulfates from the backfilled material. Again, even of true, such worsening of w~ter quality is the result of direct compa~ action. Thus, BMRI is responsible for any resulting ch~ttge 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. ~ the November Report submirted by BMRI (Table A-2), the company acknowledged that signifii ant differences in water quality before, during, and after mining has occurred. For example, the pre-mining manganese level averaged 0.041 mg/L. During mining it averaged 0.026 mg/l. I~owever; the post- mining level has averaged 0.160, with a high of 0.426 mg/1. An even higher re tng, at 0.611 mg/l was discounted in the averaging when BMRI labeled it as a `'data outlier." Rem~mber 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 th 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 manganes 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 belidves that such water quality changes should be handled by a relaxation of ground water compG ~ ce standards. It phrases this position as calling for the need to examine '"potential inappropriate s~lting of compliance standards." November 1998 BMRI Report at p. 13. We agree that the compliance standards are inappropriate, but for the op srte reasons as BMRI. AS noted above, the compliance standards aze "inappropriate" because y are currently too weak, not too stringent (i.e., they are based on domestic use levels, not them re factually correct surface water protective/recharge levels). Any argument by the company hat ground water compliance levels, or surface water quality levels for that matter, should be relax d to account fior the now co-mingled aquifers ignores the basic duties placed on operators by the fined Land Act and Rules. III. The MLRB Should Raise the Current Financial Assurance Levcl to account for the Increased Water Pumping, Monitoring and Other Project Activities BMRI has proposed, and is apparently already undertaking, short and ton term actions to further investigate and remediate site conditions. For example, the company is c ratty operatins a collection and pumping system to retrieve some of the water seeping into the o Seco. In addition, BMRI is proposing a network of monitoring wells and other site activiti s as a result of the water quality problems. Under the Act and Rules; such activities must be covlered by the financial assurance held by the MLRB. Since these activities are not covered by the existing fmancial assurance, a MLRB must raise the assurance to account for these additional costs. As a simple matter, if th costs to operate these facilities are not covered by the existing assurance, then neither BMRI nor a DMG/MLRB should expect the public to be responsible for their operation. In addition, the D G/MLRB