Laserfiche WebLink
RECEIVED <br />SEP 2 82005 <br />Division of Minerals ana~Geology <br />Department of Ngtural Resources <br />1313 Sherman St. Rm. 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Attn: T.A. Schreiner <br />Division of Minerals and Geology <br />Certified Mail-Return <br />Receipt Requested <br />September 25, 2005 <br />RE: MMRR Quarry, M-2004-067 <br />Response by Banks and Gesso (Sept. 14, 2005) to DMG Adequacy Review. <br />The most recent Banks and Gesso response to the 3rd Adequacy Review <br />comments provided to the Applicant v§~DMG letter dated Sept. 7, 2005 <br />have been reviewed by the writer at the Gilpin County Court House on 9/20 <br />when f was there on another matter. I have yet h+r be copied with this <br />material by the DMG. <br />On the B&G response, P. 3, last paragraph: "The Operator will also monitor <br />wind conditions and adjust the blast schedule to avoid blasting at times when <br />it is likely that blasting could generate a dust plume that would be dispersed <br />by wind to inhabited structures in the vicinity. Generally, no blasting will <br />occur when prevailing westerly winds averaging over 20 mph are <br />encountered at the site." <br />The above is a welcomed amendment. However, monitoring for maximum 20 <br />mph winds at the site raises the question as to the definition of site: 1f fhe <br />Operator/Applicant means at the bench elevation from which the blast is to <br />occur (or worse outside the plant office), conditions would very likely be less <br />windy than, say the upper 60 to 80 percent of the generated dust plume 100 <br />to 3001) feet above the monitoring instrumentation. I'm sure that DMG <br />personnel such as Mr. Allen Sorenson can provide the height of the average <br />expected blast plume and then recommend the best above-bench <br />elevations to sample wind velocities. <br />