My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2019-12-05_HYDROLOGY - M1999058 (4)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Hydrology
>
Minerals
>
M1999058
>
2019-12-05_HYDROLOGY - M1999058 (4)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/6/2025 7:41:43 AM
Creation date
12/6/2019 7:46:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1999058
IBM Index Class Name
Hydrology
Doc Date
12/5/2019
Doc Name
Oct. 11, 2019 Spill Report
From
Colorado Stone Quarries, Inc.
To
DRMS
Email Name
DMC
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.
/
76
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
particularly into Yule Creek. Long-term sampling will include sample collection <br /> throughout the road fill alignment, down by the sump area, and at the confluence of Yule <br /> Creek and the Crystal River. <br /> HRL completed three rounds of water and soil sampling: a baseline pre-flushing sample <br /> on Monday, October 28th; a second round on Wednesday, October 30th; and a follow-up <br /> round of sampling on Friday, November 1, 2019. The only samples with detectable <br /> concentrations (>0.5 ppm) of diesel range organics (DRO) and gasoline range organics <br /> (GRO) were from the locations within the sump —the sump basin and the seep into the <br /> sump. These samples only showed detectable GRO and DRO during pre-flushing baseline <br /> sampling (October 28th) and immediate post-flushing (October 30th) while the final post- <br /> pumping samples (November 1st) did not have detectable concentrations. The HRL <br /> sampling results spreadsheet is included in Appendix G. No detectable DRO or GRO <br /> concentrations were reported for samples collected in the up gradient (UG), cross gradient <br /> (CG), confluence, bedrock seep, or any of the five down gradient (DG) locations. <br /> Following the flushing, the sump basin yielded non-detect values. Therefore, the potential <br /> DRO and GRO impact to Yule Creek and downstream tributaries (as noted earlier in this <br /> report) was determined to be null as all samples collected from Yule Creek were non- <br /> detect. <br /> Plan to Mitigate Diesel Spill Reoccurrence <br /> While all the tanks in issue are either double walled or within a metal secondary <br /> containment structure, certain transfer points were not (Figure 25). Also, as noted above, <br /> the primary vent pipe had not been reinstalled at the time of the spill. Although the top of <br /> the now reinstalled vent pipe is at an elevation higher than the `elbow' of the return <br /> piping, the transfer points —the return piping system — still needed secondary containment. <br /> CSQ, based on advice from of GLA and later direction from DRMS, installed a liner <br /> beneath the entire fueling and generator area. <br /> 37 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.