My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1992-10-19_REVISION - M1988112 (7)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1988112
>
1992-10-19_REVISION - M1988112 (7)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/20/2021 6:02:52 AM
Creation date
11/22/2007 12:46:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1988112
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
10/19/1992
Doc Name
BMG M-88-112 TR-8 ADEQUACY REVIEW RESPONSES & TR-9 RESPONSES
From
MLRD
To
JIM STEVENS
Type & Sequence
TR9
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.
/
6
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 />3. [Partial) 7&e process of examining the suitabiliry of the proposed system far <br />ground water containment is being undertaken in nvo parrs. 77te first pm•t is the <br />i»stallation and testing of the wells, dre second is the data evaluation. and system <br />design. We concur with the 2-pan process, but would like sorrte assur•arrce that <br />acceptance of the first testing phase does not assure acceptance of the system <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 [o evaluate the data collected in Arc fteld as <br />the project progresses. If data from these wells, and well A~ 9, cannot be <br />reasonobly corretared, Borne additional testing may be required. Such additional <br />tests, if required, are normally nmch easier to conduct while a field crew is still <br />mobilized. <br />RESPONSE: BMR concurs with this comment and the field data that were collected from July <br />20 through 28, 1992 were evaluated in the field, Tlie 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. There was some discussion of flood plains in the original mine peronit, but little <br />in the current docwuents. Sane discussion by BMG as to which facilities lie irr <br />die It7~year flood plain, and how such facilities ]rave been engine4red would be <br />helpful in light of the new technical revisions. Some review of this information <br />by MLRD, and a statement of their concurrence will: the flood plnirn designations <br />would also be helpful. <br />RESPONSE: The 100-year flood plain limits were delineated in Battle Mountain'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 ]00-year flood plain limits. <br />Additionally, the tailings facility, which is located in asub-basin, i; 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 />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.