My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2015-08-12_REVISION - M2002004
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M2002004
>
2015-08-12_REVISION - M2002004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/16/2021 6:23:39 PM
Creation date
8/13/2015 9:02:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2002004
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
8/12/2015
Doc Name
Response to Questions dated June 2015 TR05
From
GCC Rio Grande
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
TR5
Email Name
TOD
WHE
AJW
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
52
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Page 8 of 8 <br />Mr. Tyler O'Donnell <br />TR -05 Response to Questions <br />As stated in the original groundwater report, there is no indication that any plant or quarry activities are <br />responsible for elevated radiochemistry activities at the GCC Facility. Elevated radionuclide activities in <br />Colorado aquifers are generally associated with leaching from granitic bedrock masses that underlay many <br />aquifers in the state. The Dakota formation in the Denver basin, which extends from Pueblo to Wyoming, is also <br />host to minor Uranium roll front deposits. These deposits form when groundwater containing dissolved <br />uranium comes into contact with reducing conditions, causing precipitation of the Uranium. Such naturally <br />occurring conditions are the likely cause of the elevated gross alpha activities in the Dakota aquifer. <br />14) The narrative submitted in TR -05 described a plan were the kiln baghouse dust would be placed into the quarry <br />and used in concurrent reclamation. However, the maps submitted in TR -05 outline an area north of the plant <br />site and rail yard which is labeled as the 'fill area" Will the baghouse dust be used in ongoing reclamation as <br />described in the narrative or will the kiln baghouse dust be placed into the area labeled on the mas as the fill <br />area? Please explain the apparent discrepancy between the narrative and the maps submitted with TR -05. <br />Baghouse dust will either be put in the active quarry area, designated by year of operation on the accompanying <br />maps, or will be mixed with other reclamation materials. Baghouse dust will not be placed within 150 feet of <br />arroyos. Please see the blue box outlining areas in which the baghouse dust could be placed within the mining <br />area. The maps that correspond to these stipulations have also been updated and can be found in Attachment B. <br />15) Rule 3.1.5 requires the Applicant/Operator to sign an affidavit certifying that the material is clean and inert, as <br />defined be Rule 1.1(20). The signed affidavit submitted in TR -05 did not certify the kiln baghouse dust as clean <br />and inert material. Please provide a signed affidavit certifying the kiln baghouse dust as clean and inert <br />A signed affidavit certifying the kiln baghouse dust as clean and inert can be found in Attachment C. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.