2000-04-21_PERMIT FILE - M2000002 ‎(5)‎

• Permit No: M2000002
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 4/21/2000
• Doc Name: ADEQUACY ISSUES LAFARGE INC TANABE PIT M-2000-002
• From: DMG
• To: TOM SCHREINER
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
999
~ •
STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
April 21, 2000
To: Tom Schreiner
From: Harry Posey4~~'~C/'
Subject: Adequacy Issues: Lafarge Inc., Tanabe Pit, M-2000-002
DIVISION OF
MINERALS
GEOLOGY
RECLAMATION
MINING•SAFETY
Bil I Owens
Governor
Greg E. Walther
Executive Director
Michael B. Long
Division Director
This memo follows our meeting today with Laura Williams and Larry Kimmel of EPA and Pam
Acre ofTuttle-Applegate. This review addresses questions about groundwater chemistry, alone.
have not reviewed other issues such a slope stability, water rights, right of ways, etc.
COMMENTS
Several letters of concern and my review house questions about the following:
• mining within a contaminated aquifer;
• whether groundwater had been tested for contaminants including diisopropylmethyl
phosphonate (DIMP), methyl chloride, other volatile organic compounds, parathion, DDT,
marathion, atrizine, non-chlorinated hydrocarbons including ethyl benzine, and xylene.
• need for an NPDES discharge permit;
• potential for withdrawal of existing off-site groundwater contaminants into the mining site
through pumping.
The following addresses these concerns in order.
A. Potential eround~vater contamination.
On review of maps and documents prepared for EPA, it is apparent [hat the proposed operation
occupies an area near former and perhaps present groundwater plumes containing DIMP, and is
near aformerly-mapped plume containing TTCLE. DIMP in excess of 8 parts per billion (ppb)
existed in groundwater a few hundred feet northeast of the proposed pit as recently as 1997 in a
plume that has been shrinking for several years. Detectable DIMP also existed in groundwater
coincident with the western portion of th eproposed operation as recently as 1996; however, this
plume did not appear in 1997 reports. TTCLE was reported as recently as 1996 in an area
approximately '/< mile southwest of the proposed site, but apparently has not been reported since.
Except for D[MP and TTCLE, according to Williams and Kimmel, none of the other
contaminants named in letters to the Division have been identified within or in the near vicinity
of the proposed operation. Because groundwater is being pumped from several locations on the