My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1992-06-30_REVISION - M1988112 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1988112
>
1992-06-30_REVISION - M1988112 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/19/2021 7:15:52 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 7:57:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1988112
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
6/30/1992
Doc Name
COMMENTS OF BMRIS RESPONSE TO ADEQUACY COMMENTS ON TR-006 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROTOCOL
From
MLRD
To
PARCEL MAURO HULTIN & SPAANSTRA PC
Type & Sequence
TR6
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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
<br />RESPONSE TO COMMENTS BY JAMES STEVENS: <br />1. BMRI's response indicates that the low level of flow, rather <br />than lack of evidence of cyanide, is justification for <br />maintaining the sampling frequency for the leak detection <br />system on a monthly basis rather than increasing it to bi- <br />weekly. The Division has not had any problem in securing <br />adequate fluid from the system during the Division's bi-weekly <br />sampling trips, so the Division does not feel the flow is <br />inadequate. If it is, then bi-weekly sampling and analysis <br />can be conditioned on the basis of there being insufficient <br />sample available. Since the leak detection systrem already <br />shows evidence of cyanide, its monitoring on a more frequent <br />basis is desirable in order to be able to better coYrelate any <br />variations that it may show in cyanide content with those <br />appearing at other bi-weekly sampling sites. <br />2. Comment answered. <br />3. Comment answered. <br />RESPONSE TO COMMENTS BY DAVID HYATT [Drafted by Harry Posey]: <br />1. No comment. <br />2. Comment answered. <br />3. Comment answered. <br />r <br />4. Because the MLRD regulates over 2,000 mines, it is <br />unreasonable to assume that all reports will be studied in a <br />timely way. BMRI should further its commiitment to <br />self-monitoring by indicating in this protocol dodument that <br />they will make a deliberate and timely effort to draw <br />anomalous values to the attention of MLRD. <br />Comment answered. <br />6. There is nothing in Dr. Hyatt's comments to indicatE he has an <br />academic interest in having BMRI characterize the conditions <br />of the ponds fully. If the compositions of the progess fluids <br />and local ground water were known fully, BMRI would be able to <br />evaluate analyses taken under adverse conditions (e.g. partial <br />samples or samples collected when indicator conditions such as <br />pH and conductivity were unstable - see Posey comments #9 and <br />#10) by comparing them with historical data. <br />This item should be re-addressed. If BMRI needs assistance in <br />assessing the need for fluid characterization, the Division <br />will assist them, if requested. <br />Comment answered. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.