REP20322 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• r,~~~~ i ~ ~~ 9 RS-$. The total aluminum concentration (160 /ign)`gxceeded the lower limit of the Safe Drittldng Water Act Maximum Contaminant Level ~(Ivl~j~ of $0 pg/I (upper limit = 200 l~ , ~d pg/1). The total silver concentration (30 pg/1) exceeded the Clean Water Act acute aquatic p~ p.,.(y,~ life criteria of 4.1 ug/1 (at a hardness of 100 mg/1) by over seven times and exceeds the chronic standard (0.12 Ng/I) by 250 times. Cadmium concentrations were below detection / / at $ {/g/1• ~~~f ..r«~`.r rtl~o «w=-(jr..J Process Points. Total cyanide concentrations in the ]ow ailings~pond, upper tailings pond and the collection pond/duplicate were 0.8,,0.24 and 8[7.9mg/l, respectively. WAD cyanide concentrations were 0.$6, 0.2 and 7.9 8 g/l, respec vely in these same process points. Dissolved copper concentrations were'T.72, 2.33 and 17.4/18.9 mg/1 in the lower tailings, upper tailings and collection ponds, respectively. Field and Rinse Blank, The 5eld blank (BMRI DI water) had somewhat elevated concentrations of iron (80 pg/I), silica (34.5 mg/1) and zinc (20 pg/1). The rinse blank had somewhat elevated concentrations of iron (30 pg/1), but they were below those in the field blank. Groundwater Wells. Well M-13 had a cyanide concentration just above the detection limit P L ~ (30 pg/1); WAD cyanide was below detection. This well also had a silver concentration (60 Q , Ng/1) that was higher than the other wells and above the silver MCL value of $0 Ng/I (the current SMCL for silver is 100 pg/I). Dissolved copper concentrations in well M-12 (20 pg/1) were higher than in the other wells, which w re below detection copper. ~,./ yw '~~ r tr '~r~~0 ~~ P~ "~~ sci~; 3.2 Analytes Determined ~ t ~ According to the MOU between f~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ I ~,~1,~~~ gy ( ) ~ 6~ ~ p, . Colorado Division of 1~tinerals and "Geolo DMG and ~,~ BMRI (pg. $), the third party sampling contractor shall have the samples analyzed only for total cyanide, WAD cyanide and c~p~r._ If analytical interferences are suspected to exist, the third party monitor may direct the laboratory to determine additional parameters, with the concurrence of the DMG project manager, after notification of BMRI. As agreed upon by BMRI before collection of the first sample, the third-party monitor accepted splits of more than the sample types outlined in the sampling agreement (see Tables 1 and 2). There seems to be some confusion about the analytes that are to be determined in the process point samples (tailings and collection ponds). The TR-0006 document lumps the process points in with the lysimeter samples when discussing both collection and handling methods (Section 4) and protocol for analysis (Section 6). The implication in Section 6 is that Table 2 provides the list of analytes to be determined in both the lysimeter and the process point samples. However, only the analytical methods for total and WAD cyanide, copper, zinc, iron, calcium and sodium are discussed (pg. 41). Table 2, which is labeled: RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc.