Laserfiche WebLink
To the Division's knowledge, all surface manifestations of seeps from the West <br />Pit have ceased. Inspections by the Division (in June 2000), the Division of Minerals and <br />Geology (in Apri12000 and June 2000), and EPA (in June 2000) have confumed this <br />finding. Additionally, water quality data from monitoring station RS-2 demonstrates a <br />reduction in in-stream sulfate and manganese levels, which is consistent with the <br />Division's finding- <br />4. CCCD and PAES stated that the Order fails to consider the wide range: of <br />technical deficiencies in the draft permit. <br />The Order seeks to address past violations of the WQCA and is premised on the <br />understanding that Battle Mountain is working diligently to ensure future compliance <br />with the Act. The Division is working to address any deficiencies in the draft permit <br />through its permitting process under the CDPS Regulations (Regulation #61), which has <br />included and will continue to include opportunity for public input. <br />5. CCCD and PASS cottunented that the October 7, 1997, starting date fo:- violations <br />was improper because it relied on data from monitoring station RS-5, rather than a station <br />fiuthcr upstream, RS-2. They noted that elevated levels of sulfate were detected at <br />gt'ottndwater motitoring points in 1991. They also asserted that the Division's focus on <br />elevated levels of sulfate at RS-5 is misplaced because elevated levels of other- pollutants <br />were detected at RS-5 as eazly as 1992. <br />The Division believes that the location of RS-5 lends itself to the moss. accurate <br />assessment of the violations at the facility because it has a comprehensive database and is <br />located at the downstream property boundary for the Battle Mountain facility. The <br />Division further submits that the discrepancy between using RS-5 and RS-2 ut <br />determining a starting point for violations would be minimal, if not non-existent. The <br />Division believes that using elevated sulfate levels in the groundwater for penalty <br />calculation purposes would be inappropriate because it is no[ within the Division's <br />jurisdiction to regulate such dischazges. Rather, such dischazges aze regulated by the <br />"implementing agency" in this case, the Division of Minerals and Geology ("DMG"). <br />Finally, the Division believes that the data included in the Groups' comments indicating <br />elevated manganese levels at RS-5 in 1992 should not be used as a starting point for <br />violations, as it simply represents natural variations in the alluvial system known to <br />contain naturally elevated manganese concentrations (see RS-~ database). A thorough <br />review of Battle Mountain's monitoring data indicates that consistent elevated sulfate <br />levels at R5-5 were detected beginning on October 7, 1997, and accordingly, the period <br />to be used for penalty calculation should commence on that date. <br />6. CCCD and PASS noted that the agreement fails to include data relied upon for the <br />determination of impacts and assessment of penalties. The Groups also asserted that the <br />Division lacks adequate data to demonstrate the cessation ofseep-related dist:hazges or <br />the reversal of groundwater flow from the West Pit to the Rito Seco, and therefore the <br />agreement incoaectly assumes prompt compliance on the part of Battle Mountain <br />,~ <br />_... <br />b0'd 9T: £T 00~ 6 6ny 855£998£0£:Xpd <br />