My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE32827
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE32827
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:43:38 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 1:31:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1988112
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
9/9/1993
Doc Name
TRANSMITTAL OF THIRD PARTY MONITORING REPORT APRIL 28-29 1993
From
DMG
To
BATTLE MTN RESOURCES 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.
/
2
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 <br />• <br />STATE OF <br />DIYISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1 313 Sherman 51., Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />Phone: 1303) 866-3567 <br />FAX: (303) 832-8106 <br />September 9, 1993 <br />Ms. A1ana Scott <br />Battle Mountain Resources Inc. <br />P 0 Box 310 <br />San Luis, CO 81152-0310 <br />Or ~~[O <br />Nom;; <br />R• <br />• ~8 T6 <br />Roy Romer <br />Governor <br />Michael8 Long <br />Division Director <br />RE: Transmittal of Third Party Monitoring Report, April28-29, 1993 <br />Dear Ms. Scott: I <br />Transmitted herewith is the report from Dr. Ann Maest~ RCG/Hagler, <br />Bailly, Inc., titled: <br />Summary Report: Third-party Monitoring of Battle Mou tain resource <br />Inc.'s San Luis Gold Mine, San Luis, Colorado, Apri 28-29, 1993 <br />I have noted two insignificant editorial mistakes in th text (P. 4; <br />§3.1.2, 91, line 4: Change "total WAD cyanide" to "total cyanide". P. <br />11 §4.'0, ~2, line 6: Change "possible" to "possibly"), therwise, the <br />report is acceptable to the Division. <br />The Conclusions section (~4.0) contains two comments t at require a <br />response from Battle Mountain. Please respond to ~he following <br />comments as soon as possible. <br />1. "Given the problems with WAD and total cyanide <br />differences in cyanide concentrations in filtered <br />samples, it would be important to conduct spike <br />every process point sample, especially unfiltered <br />2. "As recommended in the last third-party monitoring s <br />a more consistent and detailed study of interfere) <br />conducted by an analytical laboratory. Given the 1 <br />times and the problems with reanalyses and result: <br />reports, it is difficult to recommend Core Laborat <br />interference study. Another laboratory should be <br />this study and possibly for use as the main analytic <br />I anticipate having the fourth monitoring report withil <br />will do all I can to review it with top priority so tha <br />schedule may resume. Anticipating no problems, I recomme <br />Mountain set up the next two sampling trips with tk <br />monitor as soon as possible. <br />the noted <br />unfiltered <br />~overies on <br />ples." <br />iary report, <br />3 should be <br />turnaround <br />n the QA/QC <br />es for this <br />ntified for <br />laboratory. <br />the day, and <br />the sampling <br />i that Battle <br />third-party <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.