Laserfiche WebLink
.~ <br />John Hardaway -2- May 30, 1995 <br />comments from our resident geochemist Dr. Harry Posey which are in response <br />to Item No. 7. <br />Item No. 4: The proposal to employ a 10 feet overlap instead of the 40 foot for the <br />geosynthetic liner overlap for Phase II underdrain, the Division believes the <br />purpose of the overlap was to protect contaminants from entering the <br />underdrain system. The Division believes, at this time, when we are detecting <br />contaminanzs in the leak detection sumps, when the operation is not even at full <br />capacity will be unwise. The clay liner being deployed by the operator has <br />.5 mg/1 WAD cyanide concentrations and has a very good chance of entering <br />the underdrain system, so at this time the Division denies the request to <br />decrease the liner overlap from 40 feet to 10 feet for Phase II underd~ift <br />.. <br />construction. <br />Item No. 7: The disposition of overburden and Item No. 2 geochemistry of Pad II material - <br />Please address the following request from our resident geochemist <br />Dr. Harry Posey. <br />This review evaluates three documents: <br />1. Letter from CC&V cited in the title (May 2 Letter). <br />2. 72-hour D.I. Contact Tests -Pad 2 (Attachment 1). <br />3. Proposal of Cripple Creek & Victor Gold Mining Company in the Matter of Water <br />Classifications and Standards for the Arkansas River Basin §3.2.0, 5 CCR 1002-8 <br />[proposal dated March 29, 1995 to Water quality Control Commission] (WQCC <br />Proposal). <br />REVIEW <br />Attachment 1. Attachment 1, as presented, is the company's rendition of leach tests that were <br />reported to the company by Mid Continent Labs. For the Division to accept the information, <br />the company should submit copies of the original information sheets to the Division for <br />review. Essential QA/QC information should be included. The units for each measurement <br />should be noted. The name, address and key contact persons at the analytical lab should be <br />identified. The summary report supplied by CC&V, while convenient, is not verified and <br />therefore may contain errors from the originals. <br />The Division is not fatniliaz with the 72-hour D.I. Contact Test. This is not to say that the <br />tests are invalid, but rather that the procedure is one with which the Division is not familiar. <br />Please provide a detailed explanation of the analytical procedure. <br />The six samples, P2-1 through P2-6, which aze reported in Attachment 1, are not identified <br />