My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR11706
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
1000
>
APPCOR11706
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:32:03 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:22:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1996084
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
5/27/1997
Doc Name
LORENCITO CANYON MINE PN C-96-084 NEW PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW OF FIRST ADQUACY RESPONSE
From
DMG
To
GREYSTONE DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS INC
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.
/
20
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
III IIIIIIIIIIIII III f ~ <br />999 <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Depanmem of NaWral Resources I~~~~ <br />1313 Sherman Sr., Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 8020) <br />Phone: U03) 866-3567 <br />FAX. (3071 872-8106 <br />DEPARTMEN'T' OF <br />NATURAL <br />May 27, 1997 RESOURCES <br />ftoy Romer <br />Governor <br />WmesS Lochhead <br />Greystone Development Consultants, [no. E`e`~~„e Drtenor <br />5990 Greenwood Plaza Blvd., Ste. 250 0~~, o~ o~`~ o, <br />Englewood, CO 80111 <br />Attn: Jerry Koblitz <br />RE: Loreucito Canyon Mine (Permit No. C-96-084) <br />New Permit Application <br />Review of First Adequacy Response <br />Deaz Jerry: <br />The Division has completed review of the responses to our initial adequacy review for the <br />Lorencito Canyon Mine permit application. Our responses aze organized by the original question <br />numbers identified via the Mazch 3, ]997 Division adequacy review letter. <br />General Errors of Omissions <br />Under this section, all responses were found adequate except as listed below. <br />2. Page 2.04-7 was not included in the adequacy responses; therefore, the term overburden <br />is still used in the Interburden section. Also, the term overburden is still used once in <br />Exhibit 6. <br />3. Page 2.04-8 still refers to overburden in the Underburden section. Also, Exhibit 6 <br />continues to use the term overburden in the Underburden section. <br />Rule 2.03 <br />Under this section, all responses were found adequate except as listed below. <br />13. The applicant's response seems to need a bit more information. Section 2.03.3(4) requires <br />water sampling, as well as laboratory analyses, to be conducted in accordance with 40 <br />CFR 136 and 40 CFR 434. The applicant's response addressed how the laboratory <br />analyses were (or were not) conducted in accordance with these federal regulations, but <br />did not seem to address whether the sampling was conducted in accordance with these <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.