REP21513 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1996 Annual Hydrology Report Responses December I1, 1997 Page 2 information on the small sumps would not be required to be discussed in the pemri[; and, therefore would not be discussed in the AHR. 4. There were exceedances for MB-3 during first quarter 1996, due to a storm event that exceeded the 10-year 24-hour storm event, as identified on Table 6. Page 20 of the AHR has been revised to reflect this. 5. Actual data collected from the North Fork Lower Station, as recommended by CDMG, is included in Appendix C. MCC believes that it is unnecessary to collect data from the lower station while the ponds are dischazging, unless discharge limits may be exceeded. MCC understands that discharge limitations aze set in the NPDES permit by the Water Quality Control Division to protect the stream. If discharges are within effluent limitations, then the stream should not be impacted. MCC has and will continue to take measurements at the North Fork Lower Station as part of the regular monitoring prograzn if a discharge sample has exceeded effluent limitations. The other specific sources for constituent contributions between the upper and lower North Fork stations have been incorporated into the permit in TR#80. 6. Table 15 has been updated with the revised CHIA calculations as presented in the PHC Technical Revision. Please note that all discharges from the W WTP are routed through MB-2R; therefore, the discharge is accounted for in the NPDES reporting for MB-2R. Please also note that all mine water was routed through MB-1 or MB-2R (or in the case of the direct discharge, was sampled with MB-1); therefore, all mine water is accounted for in the NPDES reporting for the two ponds. No response is necessary. 8. As the Division has recommended, MCC has been evaluating the groundwater monitoring network since the prepazation of the 1996 AHR to determine whether wells should be replaced or discontinued. As you recall, we had expressed our desire to evaluate the monitoring program during the meeting with Jonathan Kelly of Wright Water Engineers, Inc. and you regazding MCC's plans for the 1996 AHR, and requested your input. MCC would still like the opportunity to complete this evaluation and make a proposal on a replacement program based on data needs. There is no evidence, from MCC's long history of drilling in this area, that there is a deeper saturated interval in which to drill. Therefore, MCC does not believe the Division's recommendation is viable. As discussed in [Ire Geology and Hydrology sections of MCC's permit, there are many discontinuous lenses