Laserfiche WebLink
<br />• III <br />IIIIIIIII IIII III <br />STATE <br />• <br />OF - i <br /> <br />COLORADO ' <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Depanmern of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman St., Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 D I v 15 1 0 N O F <br />Phone: (30J) 866-356; MINERAL S <br />FAX: (303)83?-8106 & <br /> GEOLOGY <br /> RECLAMATION <br /> MINING•SAFETY <br />June 8, 2001 <br /> Bill Owens <br /> <br />To: Jim Dillie Governor <br /> Greg E. Walther <br /> Eveculive Dirrclor <br />From: Harry Posey nticnxel B. Lnng <br /> Division Director <br />Subject: TR-31 Application, BMR1, S an Luis Project, M -88-I 12 <br />In their proposed TR-31, Battle Mountain requested that the Division approve adoption of a <br />nitrate + nitrite as N analysis to replace the currently required separate analyses of ryitrate and <br />nitrite. In my review of June 5, 1 indicated this would be acceptable. Upon furthei <br />consideration 1 would inquire about the current need to monitor nitrogen compounds at all. <br />Nitrogen compounds may appear in waters (a) as direct rinseout through blasted rock where such <br />compounds are used as blasting agents (ammonium nitrate, for instance), (b) as products of <br />cyanide degradation and (c) as outwash of organic fertilizers. Since blasting has not been <br />conducted for several years, as all remaining cyanide is contained in the lined tailings facility and <br />monitored directly, and as organic fertilizers apparently are not being added at the Site, is there a <br />remaining need to monitor for nitrogen compounds anywhere in this facility? <br />Provided there are no additional sources of nitrate or nitrite and that you see no other continuing <br />need to monitor for these species, I would suggest that the company could consider asking to <br />delete monitoring of these parameters as part of the overall reduction in monitoring proposed <br />under TR-3l . <br />