My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
HYDRO20201
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Hydrology
>
HYDRO20201
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:41:34 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 1:24:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1980244
IBM Index Class Name
Hydrology
Doc Date
5/17/1995
Doc Name
REVIEW LETTER DATED 5/2/1995 IN RE SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION ON 1995 CONSTRUCTION OF CRESSON VALLEY
From
DMG
To
BERHAN KEFFELEW
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.
/
10
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
<br />waste rock must be protected in order to prevent the generation and release of acid and toxic <br />materials. <br />The WQCC Proposal. <br />In the Division's previous written exchanges and meetings with the Company, we established <br />logical premises for assessing the quality of discharges of process water from the CCC&V site. <br />In those cases, water quality was assessed on the basis of what the Division understood at the <br />time to be the most likely discharge limitations. <br />In this review it is assumed that the operative discharge limitations for the long-term are likely <br />to be the "numeric standards" listed in the WQCC Proposal. The WQCC has not accepted <br />the company's proposal, but as I understand, the WQCD agrees with it; so, considering that, <br />I have used their initial acceptance in evaluating the geochem leach tests. <br />The "temporary modifications and qualifiers" are not applicable because they will apply for <br />three years only. Our responsibility is to protect mining sources of acid and toxic materials <br />from leaving the site for the life of mine. <br />Conclusions. <br />CC&V's refutations of the Division's review, assessment, and conclusions regarding the <br />potential for the ore and waste to generate acid and toxic materials have been considered. As <br />part of that consideration I have re-examined all of the initial, new, and cited information. <br />My conclusions, based on this examination of new information and re-examination of the <br />older data is the same as before. My evaluation is based on the premise that the water quality <br />standards for Arequa Gulch that will be applicable for the long term are the proposed <br />"numeric standards" for Arequa Gulch. <br />A complete assessment of the "contact tests" has not been completed as I am not familiar with <br />the test parameters, and no supposing explanation has been offered. Also, the "report" itself <br />is anoperator-generated rendition of the test results that lacks verification, analytical units, <br />locations of samples, explanation of representativeness, and sampling methodology. Upon <br />receipt of this information, we should review the results further, and in context of all <br />previously-submitted information. <br />cc: Bruce Humphries <br />Jim Stevens <br />Jim Pendleton <br />A:\CCVS 95.REV <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.