Laserfiche WebLink
variances from the standards specified in section 41.5 of Regulation 41 but not in the <br />context as described in section 3 of the report. The variance (41.7 F) referenced in <br />section 3 of the report applies to ground water standards and is done through the <br />Commission rulemaking and public hearing process. Our Division cannot assign <br />classifications and standards to specified areas of groundwater nor do we have the <br />regulatory authority to grant variances or apply "alternative compliance points". <br />3. Significant discussion is given to justification for an "alternative compliance <br />point", but the report didn't provide for an alternative point of compliance and it is <br />unclear if a point of compliance would be established for those perched water zones <br />above 300 feet. No point of compliance is recommended or established with this report <br />for any of the aquifers or water bearing zones that have been reviewed in previous <br />permitting efforts or Findings by the Division. <br />4. In the conclusions and recommendations section 5 it is stated that "aquifers within <br />the Mine permit boundary and those down gradient from the Mine are not used for <br />domestic or agricultural uses"... and "these aquifers do not have a classification to <br />support existing or future uses:.." Classification of State Waters is the sole responsibility <br />of the WQCC. Until such time that the ground water is classified, the applicable and <br />relevant standards are the Interim Narrative Standards (INS) in Reg. 41. For the Bowie <br />No. 2 Mine the standards that apply are the least restrictive of either: <br />1) existing ambient quality as of January 31, 1994,or <br />2) the most stringent criteria from Table 1 through 4. <br />The INS would be in effect until such time that ground water is classified by the WQCC <br />or our Division has sufficient documentation to determine that the site does not have the <br />potential to negatively impact the quality of ground water for which quality standards <br />have been established by the WQCC. <br />5. There was good information presented in the report that may assist in making a <br />judgment regarding the potential for the operation to negatively impact groundwater. I <br />recommend that the information presented in the report be incorporated into the PAP <br />through a revision application to expand upon previous Findings regarding the potential <br />impacts to the Upper and Lower Perched Water Zones and the Rollins sandstone. There <br />is already discussion in the Probable Hydrologic Consequences (PHC) regarding the fact <br />that confining shale layers and piezometric head should prevent any integration of water <br />from either the D-Seam or B-Seam into the Rollins sandstone. The approach presented in <br />the report focused in general terms on all groundwater greater than 300 feet with minimal <br />discussion of the Rollins sandstone and no mention of the Upper and Lower Perched <br />Water Zones that has been researched and documented in the PAP. In recent years a <br />primary focus of our groundwater reviews has been whether a point of compliance should <br />be established in the Rollins sandstone (a recognized aquifer in the area) as mining <br />progresses to the north and to the west towards Terror Creek. There was no additional <br />water quality data or any comparisons to baseline information presented to support a <br />determination of no potential for impact to bedrock ground water. It is recognized that <br />bedrock groundwater formations in the vicinity of the mine have low transmissivities. <br />However, with regard to the movement of ground water there was no new information or <br />