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~eeting ground <br />water standards at M-11 R. The duration, significance, and penalization for these via, Lions 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 t address at the <br />hearing, a plain read of Tables A-1 - A-3 indicates that BMRI, the DMG and t~e MLRB have <br />overlooked certain surface water standard violations.' In fact, the November "TR-15 esponse Plan" <br />incorrectly states that, "at no time have the in-stream values exceeded stream stand~rds for the Rito <br />Seto."~ As our summary will describe, since as early as 1994 Manganese content Uon in the Rito <br />Seto 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 nditions in the <br />Sanfa Fe Conglomerate. Its placement was specified to monitor the quality of drainag water from the <br />west pit and is a point of compliance under BMRI's permit with the DMG. M-11 R was nstalled in 1996 <br />as a replacement well for M-11. M-11, placed in the Rito Seco Alluvium formatio ,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 Div~ion of Minerals <br />and Geology (a.k.a. DMG or the Division) that monitoring results from monitoring well jv1-11 R were out <br />of compliance with BMRI's permit conditions (613 mglL). M-11 R measured a TDS lev l of 661 mg/L on <br />July 6, 1998. <br />By August 17", the Division's records indicate that if the permit requirement Ire-sample of M- <br />11 R exceeded permit condition value, "the Division may issue BMRI a notice of pos ible violation for <br />exceeding TDS permit condition values (pursuant to TR-15)."' The re-sampling found DS levels to be <br />higher, measuring 772 mglL on August 10'", 1998 and 696 on August 20", 1998. BM I was reminded <br />of the potential violation notice in a letter from the Division, on August 31, 1998.' <br />On September 2ntl, BMRI notified the Division that further re-sampling from TA-11 R identified <br />high TDS levels. Surveys on August 27"' recorded a TDS level of 720 mg/L.s <br />BMRI's response to the Division's August 17'" letter agreed to provide a re ponse plan in a <br />timely manner. It also noted the Division's ability to issue a violation in light of rece t circumstances. <br />BMRI noted, "the uncertainty surrounding the cause of the elevated TDS levels and ether such data <br />provides an accurate reflection of groundwater quality, we believe this wnside anon would be <br />' BN1R1, November 1998, TR-IS Response Plan, Tables A-2 and A-3. <br />'-BMRI, November 1998, TR-i5 Response Plan, paee I5. <br />'James Dillie, August l7, 1998, tvtemo to Bruce Humphries and James Stevens. <br />' James Dillie, August 31, 1998, Letter to Ron Zumwalt. <br />s Ron Zumwalt, September 2, 1998, Letter [o Jim Dillie. <br /> <br />