REP40737 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Energy Fuels Mining Company Raton Creek Mine Permit No. C-82-055 2003 Annual Hydrology Report (Reporting Period January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003} Introduction This Annual Hydrology Report (AHR) presents summarized hydrologic monitoring data for the Raton Creek Mine operation for the 2003 reporting period. In addition, discussion and comparison of these data with previous reporting periods are incorporated within the report. The AHR is prepared and submitted in accordance with CMLRD Rule 4.05.13. Monitoring data compiled for the AHR include the period from 1987 through 2003, representing the entire time that Energy Fuels has operatedJreclaimed the mine. EFMC has no hydrologic data from the previous mine operator on file. Required monitoring data collected and presented in this AHR includes: groundwater quality and levels; diversion flow quantity and quality; and quantity and quality of dischazges to streams. Groundwater Two groundwater wells are monitored at the Raton Creek Mine, identified as the Iuppa Well and the Refuse Well. Field and laboratory data collected from the monitor wells are summazized as described below. As reflected on the water quality data tables and water well level figures, EFMC followed the approved monitoring schedule (revised in 2001) of semi- annual field and laboratory quality sampling, and quarterly water level measurements. Current and historic water quality data for the Iuppa Well and Refuse Well are shown on Tables 2 and 3, respectively. A review of monitoring data for each well through the period of this report indicate that the monitored parameters aze within a range consistent with previous monitoring data. Monitoring data for the Iuppa Well indicate slightly higher levels of total alkalinity for the reporting period as compazed to the average of 1987 through 2002 whereas hazdness and sulfate has decreased. Refuse Well monitoring data indicate slightly higher levels of total alkalinity, manganese, temperature and sodium for the reporting period as compared to the average range of previous monitoring data mentioned above. Comments from the Division in response to the previous AHR (2002) requested calibrating the monitoring instrument for conductivity. Inhouse calibration to the meter showed little effect. However, effective 2004, EFCI will use a different meter for monitoring as a safeguazd for accuracy. Future meter readings for conductivity should indicate the degree of accuracy in previous instrumentation.