My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV16068
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV16068
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 1:27:27 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 11:11:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981014
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
12/17/1997
Doc Name
MIDTERM RESPONSES SOUTHFIELD MINE TR NO 29 GROUND WATER MONITORING & MITIGATION PLAN PN C-81-041
From
DMG
To
SUSAN BURGMAIER
Type & Sequence
TR29
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.
Page 1 of 1
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 iuiiiiiiiiiiiiii <br />STATE OF COI.C~iy~yU <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Depanmenl of Natural Resources <br />I.S 13 Sherman SL, Room 215 r <br /> <br />Denver, Colorado 80201 I <br />~ <br /> <br />Nhnne: 13071 8661567 I <br />FAX: 13031 832~N106 <br /> DEPARTMENT OF <br /> NATURAL <br /> RESOURCES <br /> Roy Romer <br /> Governor <br />DATE: December 17, 1997 lames 5 Lochhead <br /> E.ecwive Duecmr <br /> <br />TO: Susan Burgmaier Michael B. Long <br />Divislnn Director <br />FROM: Mike Boulay h}~ <br />RE: Midterm Responses Southfield Mine; Technical Revision No. 29 (Groundwater <br />Monitoring and Mitigation Plan); Permit No. C-81-041 <br />I have reviewed EFCI's responses to questions 10, 12, and 13 regazding groundwater monitoring <br />and mitigation. I have the following minor comments. <br />10. Response accepted. EFCI provided good reasoning in their response. The loadouts aze <br />reclaimed and there is no baseline groundwater data for the loadout from which impacts <br />could be compared to and assessed. I think we want to reserve the right to monitor <br />groundwaternow or at any time if we deem it appropriate based on site inspections or other <br />data such as surface water monitoring results. They claim that all drainage from the loadout <br />goes to surface waterandisthereforemonitoredbytheircurrenthydrologicmonitoring. You <br />might want to check the last couple of AHR reviews to see if this is consistent or if any <br />anomalous data have been reported in their surface water monitoring. <br />12. It is standard protocol to purge wells prior to sampling. If the wells have sufficient water in <br />the well bore at the time of sampling to purge three well volumes prior to retrieving a sample <br />for analysis, then this should be done. As I understand their groundwater monitoring <br />program, they only have five wells at the entire site. Purging would not substantially impact <br />their cost or time required to conduct their groundwater monitoring program. There is the <br />issue of handling the discharge water. This can be easily handled by their site pond(s) or <br />dischazged directly to the surface as long as it does not contain toxic compounds or otherwise <br />considered contaminated. <br />13. Response accepted. <br />David Beny <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.