Laserfiche WebLink
STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY - - <br />°F °p~ <br />Department of Natural Resources .~E <br />OR <br /> Ne ~ tj <br />O <br />1313 Shuman Si., Room 215 ~ <br />' <br />Denver, CO A0203 . <br />+: <br />~ <br /> <br />Phone: (403) 36G-3567 re,c <br />FAS:(3031 A32-A106 <br /> Ray Romer <br /> Governor <br />1993 <br />March 15 nai drae~ B. Long <br />~ Division Direaar <br /> <br />TO: Janet Binna~ <br />FM: Shawn Smith/ <br />Re: Salinity Report Review <br />Roadside Mine (C-S1-041) <br />Dear Janet: <br />I have read the salinity report sent by Larry Reschke, developed by <br />Earth Sciences Consultants, Inc. <br />The mine is out of compliance in salt loading by over 100$ or <br />double the permitted amount of 2,000 lbs/day or 350 tons/year. <br />Current estimates are 5,200 lbs/day at 480 to 960 tons/year. The <br />discharge points of concern in the study are NPDES #001, 002 and <br />004. All other discharge points were deemed to be intermittent and <br />inconsequential to the salt-loading issue. The alternatives to <br />direct discharge by these three points into the Colorado River are <br />presented in the report with their correspondingly technological <br />feasibility, implementa~:ion and capital costs and operations and <br />maintenance costs. There are six options presented for <br />consideration for salt treatment, but only five are currently <br />viable for the Roadside site, MA1 has been removed from the <br />analysis. <br />The remaining five have been analyzed for area applicability, two <br />are not possible due t:o the area size limitation. These are <br />options MA4 and MA5, w:zich need large acreage for surface pond <br />evaporation, maximum of 120 acres and minimum of 12. Both <br />categories of salt elimination and salt minimization are included <br />in the costs and implementation as are the two alternatives of <br />complete and partial (to meet CDPES standards) removal of TDS. <br />Reverse osmosis (RO), il~n exchange (IO) and underground injection <br />(UI) remain the most viable options for the site. Of the three, UI <br />is the most financially feasible and cheapest. However, even this <br />method is costly, with a price tag of $3.6 million dollars for <br />partial removal. This would entail the construction of six 6-8" <br />wells for salt elimination and 3 deep wells for salt minimization <br />"for all three discharg~:s." <br />From this report, it can be understood that the costs to bring this <br />mine into the Coloradc Salinity tolerance compliance would be <br />prohibitive and possibl~r jeopardize their operation. Costs would <br />