REP23798 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

R • • 1. No data has been collected since 1990 for a full suite monitoring of the downstream effects of the Golden Eagle Mine's refuse pile in alluvial wells PAW-3 and PAW-4. From the evidence seen in PAW-2, the alluvial well directly downgradient of the refuse area, the trends show dramatic increases from PAW-1 in the following: Fe (from 13 to 130 mg/1, up 10 times or one magnitude) TSS (30 to 650 mg/1, up 2 magnitudes), TDS (from 90 to 580 mg/1, six times) bicarbonate, (73 to 500 mg/1, seven times greater), C1 (.09 to 2.5, up two magnitudes), Na (12 to 85 mg/1) and sulfate (from 4 to 120 mg/1). In order to trace the extent of the plume of increased TDS etc., it is necessary to correlate the data downstream, particularly at PAW-3 (300 yards downstream) or PAW-4 (400 yards downstream). No data is provided to do this. The operator's explanation is: not enough water to sample. I recommend a more diligent effort to accumulate water quality data in these two alluvial wells, ae the depth to water level was detectable, there must be some water available for testing chemical parameters per the permit commitments. This issue was also addressed in 1991's AHR review as possible exceedences. 2. No data was collected for the entire year on groundwater well CCAW-1 that is located at the mouth of Ciruela Canyon and which monitors the surface facility and refuse areas. 1991 data was collected in both the months of March and November and indicated that there seemed to be an increasing trend in TDS, bicarbonate, sodium, chloride, sulfate, calcium, magnesium and potassium levels. Without data from 1992 provided, this trend is impossible to track. I recommend more diligence in obtaining samples, per the permit commitment of quarterly partials and an annual full suite. Please also provide an explanation why no samples were possible. Sugary: 1. Per Stipulation No.15, all categories have been met and the Annual Hydrology Report submitted for the water year 1992 have been met. The report was submitted July of 1993. Inspection frequency parameters have not all been met, both in the monthly, quarterly and annual short lint (full suite) categories. In particular, the following surface water monitoring sites were lacking sufficient data: CCS-1, CCS-2, CHC-1, LCS-1, MDGE-1, PRS-1,2,3 and 4. Ground water monitoring was also insufficient in the following wells: PAW-3, PAW-4 and CCAW-1. Please contact the Division and provide a reason why these site monitoring requirements were not met. Please also indicate what is meant by the words, "No flow recorded" which is used in Table 1-14 for CHC-1 and LCS-1. 2. The mine inflow parameters have all been met per Stipulation No.13 (A-D) in the New Elk permit. Each discharge point has 4