Laserfiche WebLink
.. <br />J 3. [Partial] 77:e process of examining the suitability of the proposed system for <br />ground water containment is being undertaken in nvo parts. The fire parr is the <br />irutallation mtd testing of the wells, the second is t/re data. evaluation and system <br />design. We concur will: the 2-parr process, but would like some assurnnce that <br />acceptance of the first testing phase does not assure acceptance of the syste»t <br />design. <br />RESPONSE: See response to James C. Stevens' Comment No. 2 above, and BMR's <br />commitment to provide the information collected from the well drilling, testing <br />and modelling phase to CDMG. <br />4. [Partial) We would encourage BMG to evaluate the data col)eaed in the field as <br />the project progresses. )f data from these wells, nnrl well M-9, cannot be <br />reasonably correlated, some additional testing Wray be required. Sgch additional <br />tests, if required, are normally mutt: easier to conduct while a field crew is still <br />mobilized. <br />RESPONSE: BMR concurs with this comtnent and the field data that were collected from July <br />20 through 28, 1992 were evaluated in the field. The data were correlatable <br />among the wells, including hydrogeologic interpretations of first water-bearing <br />strata and pump test results. BMR believes that sufficient data were collected <br />during the single field visit to conduct the necessary evaluations. <br />Surface Water Systems <br />1. 77rere was some discussion of flood plains in the original mine petritit, but tittle <br />in the current docu»tents. Sonte discussion by BMG as to wlriclt facilities lie in <br />tl:e It~'J-year flood plain, and how such facilities !tare been engineet•ed would be <br />helpful in light of the new technical revisions. Sonre review of this it formation <br />by MLRD, and a statement of !heir concurrence wid: the flood plain designations <br />would also be helpful. <br />RESPONSE: The 100-year flood plain limits were delineated in Battle t,tounlairt's original <br />submittal for permit no. M-88-112 (Exhibit G-8). These flood plain delineations <br />indicated that no BMR facilities were within the 100-year Flood plain limits. <br />Additionally, the tailings facility, which is located in asub-basin, is designed to <br />retain the 100-year flood. Therefore, BMR is not aware of any issues related to <br />the 100-year flood plain that have not been addressed in the original CMLRB <br />permit. [We are not aware of any additional agency review]. <br />-5- <br />