Laserfiche WebLink
TR-14 Review Memo to Steve Brown 2 November 8, 2004 <br />Sunnyside Mine Permit No. M-1977-378 <br />3. If water quality at A-72 is acceptable without treatment, why is on-going treatment of American <br />Tunnel dischazge being required? And if on-going treatment of American Tunnel discharge is <br />required to meet water quality requirements at A-72, why was Sunnyside Gold Corp. released <br />from its obligations under the Consent Decree? <br />4. Is it WQCD's intention to require perpetual treatment of Gold King Mine discharge even though <br />the discharge is historic and the Operator has done nothing since the enactment of the Mined Land <br />Reclamation Statute to impact the quality and quantity of the discharge (Sunnyside Mine flooding <br />may have impacted this discharge, but those impacts are outside the control of Gold King)? Is <br />treatment of Gold King discharge necessary to meet water quality requirements at A-72? <br />Please note that the determination that compliance with the requirements of TR-14 has been achieved is <br />based on the fact that Sunnyside physically performed the necessazy inspections and sampling; due to <br />time constraints leading up to our meeting with WQCD, this review did not include detailed examination <br />of the resultant hydrologic data. <br />cc: Harry Posey, DMG <br />Wally Erickson, DMG-Durango <br />Carl Mount, DMG <br />c:~asc\LOANER MACHMEVvty Documents\Sunnyside h-14 review.doc <br />