Laserfiche WebLink
<br />• Page 8 <br />De~mber 14, 1998 <br />having any standing water in the mine at all."'B Developments over the past few moms indicate that <br />this condition has not been fulfilled. The west pit has not been dewatered and standing ater is presnet <br />on the pit backfill despite BMRI's reclamation efforts. <br />V. BMRI Is Responsible For Changes In the Geohydrology Of the West Pit <br />BMRI claims that discharge from the west pit, and elevated concentratio s of TDS and <br />Sulfates are a result of changes in the geohydrology of the area. While the infortna ion available to <br />date supports this therr/, such information provides BMRI with no shield from its r sponsibilities to <br />maintain water quality within previously determined standards. BMRI is responsible fo those changes <br />in the geology of the west pit which are believed to be contributing to water quality roblems. They <br />must be considered accountable for the results of their actions. <br />BMRI's actions contributed to the disturbance of the hydrologic balance wit in the west pit. <br />Furthermore, BMRI has not adequately minimized these disturbances as required b C.R.S. 34-32- <br />116(7)(8). If such disturbances were reasonably minimized as required by statute, the scent problems <br />would not have developed. If, in fact, BMRI's excavation and backfilling of the pit i causing recent <br />problems then the only reasonable course of action is to require BMRI to instigate a ions to remedy <br />these problems which result in compliance with established standarcis. Any Furth actions which <br />intend to lessen water quality standards to allow for compliance cannot be suppo ed. Response <br />efforts to this situation must consider steps which will restore hydrologic balance in the it <br />VII. Questions Regarding Information From the November TR-15 Response Flan <br />Beyond those issues discussed above, we would like clarification to certain questions which <br />we have wRh the information provided in the November TR-15 Response Plan. <br />^ Has there been any consideration of whether the East Pit mould be contributing to water <br />quality Vends in the Rito Seco? Will there be any increased monitoring of groundwater <br />exiting the east pit to determine its effects on water quality. <br />^ According to Appendix B, "it would require about 10 pore volumes far the concentration [of <br />SOa] to fall to 250 mglL." What is the estimated time span before 10 po a volumes flush <br />through the west pit and SO, returns within permit standards? <br />^ According to the Response Plan Schedule (Figure 11) a long term r~sponse plan is <br />projected for completion by March 22ntl. Will the additional monitoring wel have sufficient <br />time to stabil'¢e and provide reliable geochemicel data in that time? <br />^ Have enough additional monitoring wells been proposed to provide adePuate data from <br />the west pit? <br />VII. Conclusions <br />Based upon our assessment of the information available at this time, we enc~urege the DMG <br />and MLRD to take the following actions. <br />1) Issue a permit violation to BMRI for the aforementioned water quality violation at M-11 R. The <br />Minimum fine for these violations should be $19,000. The maximum fine should be <br />$191,000.19 <br />1e Gary Dobson, July 9, 1990, Deposition of Gary C. Dobson, Disnict Court, Water Divisipn 3, Colorado, <br />Case Nox. 39-cw-32 and 89-cw-5. Pages 149 and 160. <br />~' Minimum and Maximum fines based upon the rate of 5100 - 1000 per day. See C.R.S. 34-32-124(7). <br />M- I I R TDS Violation, 116 days x S l 00 or I OOOper day = 511,600 or I 16,000 <br />