My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2018-08-16_REVISION - M2012032
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M2012032
>
2018-08-16_REVISION - M2012032
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/28/2021 7:37:44 PM
Creation date
8/16/2018 4:24:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2012032
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
8/16/2018
Doc Name
Request for Technical Revision
From
Brian K. Briggs
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
TR10
Email Name
THM
WHE
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
84
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
Privileged and Confidential Attorney Client Communication Geosyntec", <br /> `tec <br /> cottstillxints <br /> The technology review also concluded that a critical decision is the selection of the <br /> bioreactor technology. While prior pilot-testing at the Mine indicated positive <br /> performance of a vertically configured reactor, the full-scale challenges around <br /> construction, plugging, and hydraulics are still a concern. As such, we evaluated both <br /> technologies side-by-side to determine which one will provide the greatest benefit and <br /> least risk to OSMI for the new water treatment system. Table 6 provides a visual <br /> representation of how each technology compares against the evaluation criteria and are <br /> shaded white, gray, and black according to the following ranking system: <br /> • White—research, case studies, guidance manuals, and our experience have <br /> demonstrated that this technology is capable performing effectively for that <br /> category. <br /> • Gray—could be effective for that category, but may need to be adjusted or <br /> designed with a higher factor of safety to ensure success. <br /> • Black—this technology does not have consistently effective performance for <br /> that category and presents a significant risk that may be challenging to overcome <br /> through design/engineering controls. <br /> Table 6: Key Process Evaluation <br /> Treatment <br /> Performance Variable Plugging/ <br /> Technology for Similar Flow Cold Climate Engineering <br /> Mine Water Conditions Risks <br /> Quality <br /> Sulfate Reducing <br /> Bioreactor <br /> Vertical Flow <br /> Bioreactor/Wetland �A= <br /> Based on the side-by-side comparison in Table 6, Geosyntec has concluded that the <br /> SRB offers the most benefit and least risk as compared to the vertical flow bioreactor <br /> technology. As such, Geosyntec recommends to further evaluate the SRB process <br /> through the implementation of this Work Plan. Based on the testing results, the basis of <br /> design will be prepared and a final selection of the biological treatment process can be <br /> made by OSMI based on our research and the testing results. <br /> Another conclusion from the evaluation is that the three recommended technologies <br /> (aerobic wetland, anaerobic wetland, and SRB)technologies can be used in <br /> combination with one another in various configurations to allow the Mine to achieve <br /> treatment objectives and maintain regulatory compliance (Reference Guide to <br /> Treatability Study Work Plan 10 �� February 8,2018 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.