Laserfiche WebLink
further. DMG obviously is not opposed to chemical processing as long as there are adequate on- <br /> site protections, but any on-site processing must at least be identified in the permit. <br /> 4. 1 cannot explain the increase in gross alpha and "'Ra. At a minimum, these changes should <br /> be examined and explained. <br /> 5. There needs to be some explanation of the values reported as <xxx; what were these values <br /> originally? <br /> RECOMMENDATIONS: <br /> Overall, [ do not disagree with the fundamental interpretation of the altered test results, namely <br /> that groundwater standards will not be offended by a discharge from these materials, even though <br /> [ find the reporting scheme somewhat unconventional. I would recommend that the original test <br /> results be reported, that an interpretive report regarding potential environmental consequences be <br /> prepared, and that the questions raised about differences in results for the LOC-treated and leach <br /> residue samples and values below detection limits be answered or explained. I would also like to <br /> know how pH was handled: what were the original pH test results? Furthermore, I would like to <br /> know as much as can be told about the process chemistry: whether this operations processes the <br /> ores in Colorado or Wyoming, I think it is important to know what chemicals go into the <br /> processing and the rinsing. <br /> cc: Bruce Humphries / <br /> Chris Kamnikar ✓ <br /> Jim Pendleton <br />