Laserfiche WebLink
2. Bedrock Groundwater Quality <br />Significant trends in water quality were not noted in the bedrock monitoring wells. <br />The #5 mine discharge showed a slight increase in TDS, when:as the 7 North Angle <br />discharge showed a slight decrease in TDS. The decrease in the 7 North Angle <br />discharge was explained by the fact that TDS levels were previously elevated during <br />a pump malfunction where the groundwater had time to equilibrate with respect to <br />TDS. The operator predicts that the maximum TDS of 1474 mg/1 observed in the <br />7 North Angle discharge represents the maximum predic~:ed postmining TDS <br />concentrations. This prediction does not appear to be in the: potential hydrologic <br />~~ consequences (PHC) of the permit. This issue should be addressed in the upcoming <br />(~`~ midterm review (March 7, 1996). <br />~ 3. Page 8 of the PHC references figures associated with alluvial wells. Figures 22 <br />`' through 28 were not included in the PHC. Please provide the Division with these <br />figures. <br />4. Page 10 of the PHC references NPDES discharge associated with the #1 Strip Pit. <br />o~- Tables 33 and 34 show water quality of the #1 Strip Pit, but no flow data. Please <br />provide the Division with flow data for the #1 Strip Pit. <br />5. The PHC predicts that the effect of mine discharge and Strip Pit discharge will be <br />D~ to increase the dissolved solids during a low flow event in the: river from 500 mg/1 <br />to 570 mg/1 and to increase SAR from 0.5 to 2.8. However, according to Tables 29 <br />through 32, TDS has exceeded the predicted increase (e.g., the maximum TDS at <br />station WF-1 for 1994 was 2168 mg/I). On closer inspection, it is evident that the <br />maximum TDS value reported for WF-1 does not occur on the data pages. Please <br />check the tables against the data base for accuracy and make the appropriate <br />corrections. <br />~k- 6. SAR was not monitored during 1994. It will be difficult to verify the predictions in <br />the PHC without the SAR data. Please provide this data to the Division. <br />o~ 7. Tables 29 and 31 show no values for the maximum total recoverable iron. Please <br />clarify this with the Division. <br />8. A number of monitoring data was omitted in the preliminary submittal of the AHR <br />and was noted in a September 19, 1995 letter to Cyprus Empire. Three concerns <br />have yet to be addressed by Cyprus; <br />e ~ a. Acidity and Chloride were not monitored on the first quarter report for WF-1 <br />and WF-2. <br />or` b. Discharge point (023) did not include TDS for third quarter 1994. <br />