Laserfiche WebLink
STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />7313 Sherman St, Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Phone: (303) 866-3567 <br />FAX: (303) 832106 <br />Date: June 27, 2005 <br />To: Tom Schreiner <br />Carl Mount S2~ (~ <br />From: Harry Posey <br />RE: Adequacy Response Review: ear Creek Water Providers, <br />MMRR Quarry; M-2004-067 <br />COLORADO <br />D I V I S I O N O F <br />MIN sRALS <br />GEOLOGY <br />RECLAMATION•MINING <br />SAFETYKCIENCF <br />Bill Owens <br />Governor <br />Russell George <br />Executive Director <br />Ronald W. Cattany <br />Division Director <br />Natural Resource Trustee <br />LLC; <br />This memo is a review of MMRR's response to adequacy comments provided <br />under "Uranium Mineralization" on pages 6-11, submitted Mar 23 by Banks and <br />Gesso. If you have questions or need clarification, please feel free to stop by. <br />The operator should by now know that the Division met with members of the <br />CDPHE-HMWMD Stationary Sources Program and CDPHE-HMWMD Radiation <br />Management Program. At that meeting it was decided that DMG would formally <br />request CDPHE's assistance in devising a sampling and monitoring program, <br />and we requested a response by July 31. After that, we should be in a better <br />position to gauge any proposal for radiation monitoring at the MMRR site. Until <br />then, I would recommend that the operator be encouraged to hold off on their <br />proposals for monitoring and sampling. Without assuming whether the operator <br />would wish to hold off on their response, I have prepared the following comments <br />on the operator's adequacy response. <br />The operator probably correctly points out that no other quarry site in the <br />vicinity has been subjected to such scrutiny over the potential for airborne <br />or waterborne uranium. They point out that the operation is on the "fringe" <br />of a general area of uranium mineralization. Notwithstanding the accuracy <br />of these observations, this response provides no compelling reason to <br />dismiss the need for monitoring or sampling, and apparently the operator <br />agrees as they did submit a monitoring proposal. <br />2. The operator refers through this section to monitoring and sampling for <br />"uranium." With CDPHE's input it may be found to be more appropriate to <br />monitor for radioactivity. Such monitoring would also be simpler and less <br />expensive. Thus, wherever the operator has committed to sample or <br />1 <br />OIFiCe of Office of Colorado <br />Mined Land Reclamation Active and Inactive Mines Geological Survey <br />