2005-01-19_REVISION - M1999120 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~~,~,v 11566 WCR 18 Fort Lupton, CO 80621 RECEIVED January 15, 2005 Lynn Mayer JAN 19 2005 Regulatory Manager Division ~f Minerals and Geology L. G. Everist Inc. 7321 E. 88s' Avenue, Suite 200 Henderson, CO 80640 Re: L. G. Everist, Inc.'s Fort Lupton Sand and Gravel Mine Colorado DMG Permit # M-1999-120, Weld County Pernrit # USR-1255 Deaz Ms. Mayer: Thank you for getting back with me to address my concerns in your letter dated December 17, 2004. I have had the opportunity to review the material you left with me and that you have sent me since. I have also reviewed what is on record with Weld County regazding your amendment to your permit. First, I would like to make a correction from your letter to me. You stated that I am not concerned about the water wells I have on property located more than 1,000 feet to the west of your amendment azea. This is not correct. I am in fact concerned about not only the well east of the river, but also about the wells to the west of your proposed new boundary. I have reviewed the report from Wright Water Engineers dated January 3, 2005 for your DMG permit. The groundwater data presented is all gathered after L. G. Everist had already installed a slurry wall in the existing permitted area I have seen no baseline data from before the slurry wall was constructed and therefore have a hard time drawing the same conclusions as expressed in the report. Further, there should be baseline data from monitoring wells 15 and 16 from before they were damaged during the construction of the slurry wall. I believe this baseline data is crucial in understanding the impact of the existing slurry wall on the groundwater flows and levels. I also believe this understanding needs to be obtained before allowing more slurry wall construction or determining trigger points. It is for this same reason that the computer models of future slurry walls' impact on groundwater does not seem reliable. It would take baseline data from before any slurry walls were constructed to accurately model groundwater effects. Again, what has been used for the existing model is data gathered after a slurry wall was already in place. My concern about the odors from an asphalt batch plant still stands. You state that the baghouses aze designed to contain the majority of emissions of air pollutants from asphalt plants. I would agree that they are designed to contain the majority a€partieulate emissions. I would not agree that they are designed to contain the odors. In addition, I know that baghouses have failed bags or socks from time to time. How does L. G.