My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL34784
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL34784
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:56:05 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 8:03:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977208
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
12/27/2004
Doc Name
Recap of 12-17-04 Meeting
From
DMG
To
CEMEX Inc.
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
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
If the post mining land use is to be rangeland, there is little reason to take measures other <br />than those that would avoid ponded water. However, if construction is anticipated over <br />the site, the limestone mass could have a low compressive strength relative to other <br />materials, and that could require special considerations for building construction. <br />For CKD to set up into a competent, concrete-like mass, it needs a chance to dry out <br />after wetting. If kept saturated, it could continue to release alkali and produce high pH <br />indefinitely. This is something CEMEX needs to work out with CDPHE. <br />With regazd to monitoring the Dakota formation: If C-pit is impermeable, then all, most, <br />and/or enough of the dissolved Se would remain in the pit azea or would have migrated <br />only a short distance, and likely would not have affected an aquifer. The Dakota well on <br />the eastern edge of the target azea is artesian. Considering the local topography, <br />geology, and hydrology, that means C-pit water could not reach the Dakota via fractures <br />lest those same fractures would bleed water from the Dakota upwazds into the pit via <br />artesian flow. If CEMEX's explanation provides enough of the whole geohydrology to <br />satisfy our concerns about pollution in the Dakota aquifer, then the Division will <br />reevaluate the requirement for a Dakota monitoring well in addition to the exiting Hall <br />well. <br />6. With regazd to the in-progress water treatment proposal: The Division will not give a <br />pass on the elevated Se and high pH in the C-pit for any time other than this mitigation <br />period. In this event; provided C-pit water has migrated into adjacent formations only <br />minunally, and provided the Division has no reason to require CEMEX to remediate the <br />adjacent formations, then treating C-pit water to neutralize alkalinity and lower Se levels <br />would only be necessary to protect wildlife. <br />If CEMEX is willing to cover the pit water surface with bird balls, the Division could <br />accept the minimal seepage of high alkaline high Se water into adjacent formation as <br />minimizing impacts. The definition of minimization in this case will have to be worked <br />out between CEMEX and the Division. <br />If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 303-866-4943. <br />Sincerely, <br />~"~.~~,~ <br />Erica S. Crosby <br />Environmental Protection Sp' <br />cc: Bruce Humphries; DMG <br />Cazl Mount; DMG <br />Harry Posey; DMG <br />Kate Pickford; DMG <br />Paul Banks; Banks & Gesso <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.