Laserfiche WebLink
RAG Empire Corporation, Eagle Mine Water Quality Assessment CO-0034142 <br /> Table A-3 <br />Site-Specific Water Quality Standards For the Ealge Mine CO-0034142 <br /> Based on Current TVS Equations <br />Based on the Table Value Standazds Contained in the Colorado Department of Public Health <br />and Environment Water Quali Control Commission Re lotion 37 <br />Calculated Using the Eollo'wing Value for Hazdness as CaCO3^. 224 mg/1 <br /> <br />' ~" . rar.le er ~ ir.arn a~xe~, -•~ <br />'" <br /> <br />y~~ _" s` -t ,~ <br />'~,#;L~Il~~l{77{tR9'~sE R ;A~]1i~1 ~. <br />_ _ <br /> ~ eb.lza(in(naranes5~}z.vos) - . <br />Acute 25 ug/1 <br />Cadmium; Dissolved <br /> ChrOn1C 2.1 Ugfl e(0.7852.(]n(hardness)}3.490) <br />Hexavalent Chromium, Acute l6 llg/1 Numeric standards provided, formula not appliwbk <br />D1SSO1Ved ChrOIUC 11 Ug~I Nummc standards provided, formula not applicable <br /> Acute 38 Ugil e(0.4422(1n(hazdnus)}18634) <br />l <br />d <br />Di <br />ve <br />Copper, <br />sso 4 <br /> Chrunle 24 ug/l e(0.85 <br />5(In(hardncss)}1.465) <br /> Acute 353 ug/1 e(1.6148(In(hardness)}2.8736) . <br />d <br />Di <br />l <br />d <br />ve <br />Lea <br />, <br />sso Chrome 12 Ug/1 e(1.417(ht(IreTdness)}5.167) . <br /> Acute 1708 Ug~l e(0.76(ht(hardness))+3.33) <br />l <br />d <br />i <br />i . <br />ve <br />sso <br />ckel, D <br />N <br />Chronic <br />176 ug/1 (0.76(ln(haranea3>)+l.os) <br />e <br /> Acute 2 ug/1 <br />8 e(1.72(]n(hardness)}721) <br />l <br />d <br />i <br />i . <br />ve <br />lver, D <br />sso <br />S <br />Chronic <br />1.3 ug/1 p.n(ln(hardmess)}9.06) <br />e <br /> Acute ug/1 <br />232 e(0.8473(In(hardness)}W:8604) <br />d . <br />Zinc, Dissolve CI1rOmC 210 Ugl1 e(0.8473(ln(hardness)}M.7614) <br />The data available at sampling location WF-1 consisted of summarized data over a period of record <br />from 1981 threr~gh 2000. The aggregate data included the number of samples; average, maximum <br />and minimum concentrations; and the standazd deviation. Data consisting of individual analytical <br />results were limited two only 8 samples collected over the two most recent years and included <br />analytical results for only two pollutants of concern. Thus, the aggregate data for the Wil]iamsFork <br />River sampling location WF-1 were utilized. ,~. <br />Because it is WQCD procedure to evaluate ambient water quality based on the lSo', SOa' and 85a' <br />percentile and the mean concentration,' these percentile concentrations 'had to be extrapolated. <br />Furthermore, although WQCD procedures indicate that ambient water quality evaluationsshouldbe <br />based on the most recent five years of data where available, because data_for only the most recent <br />five years could not be obtained, data from the 19-year period of record vuzre instead used. <br />Appendix A Page 5 of 13 <br /> <br />r <br />• <br />