Laserfiche WebLink
Ralph Lopez <br />June 9, 1994 <br />Page 3 <br />4. Please include all of the tested parameters in Table 26C on <br />revised page 2.05-89, dated May 11, 1994, or provide a <br />statement in the text indicating why only certain parameters <br />are in Table 26C. <br />5. Revised page 2.05-89 of the May 11, 1994 submittal shows, in <br />Table 26C, that the effect of the slurry project on the TDS <br />level in the Purgatoire River, should there be discharge from <br />the portal, is predicted to raise that level from 253 mg/1 to <br />411.4 mg/1. Both values are above the domestic drinking water <br />standard of 250 mg/1 and below the irrigation water standard <br />of 500 mg/1. However, the value of 253 mg/1 was the maximum <br />value recorded at Stonewall, and, therefore, may not be <br />representative of the TDS levels at Stonewall. Using the 1993 <br />AHR value of 180 mg/1 for TDS, shown in Table 11 on page 32 of <br />the August 27, 1994 PHC submittal results in a predicted rise <br />in the TDS level from 180 mg/1 to 345 mg/1, as calculated by <br />the mass balance equation. Using the projected worst case <br />value of 205 mg/1 for TDS, shown on page 35, Table 12, of the <br />August 27, 1994 PHC submittal results in a predicted rise in <br />that value from 205 mg/1 to 368 mg/1. In these last two <br />cases, the Purgatoire River TDS level was below the domestic <br />drinking water standard but was rendered unsuitable for <br />drinking water by the addition of the slurry water, should it <br />discharge from the portal. This degradation of TDS water <br />quality could affect alluvial wells downstream. <br />The Division has concerns that manganese levels in the <br />Purgatoire River are predicted to rise above compliance levels <br />for drinking water standards and for irrigation water <br />standards, as shown in Table 26C on page 2.05-89 of the May <br />11, 1994 submittal for TR-34. <br />Also, the Division is not convinced that iron will not be a <br />problem. The total iron in the April 14, 1994 slurry sample <br />was 1150 mg/1. Please demonstrate quantitatively that the <br />standard for total recoverable iron will not be exceeded. <br />The Division believes that Basin must answer to this <br />prediction of apparent degradation of water quality in the <br />Purgatoire River downstream of the New Elk Mine. <br />6. Please elaborate on the method of analysis of the chemical <br />constituents in the slurry. Which are total, which are total <br />recoverable and which are dissolved? Also, how representative <br />of the coal slurry are the two samples that were taken? <br />Please describe the methods of sampling to show their <br />representation. <br />