Laserfiche WebLink
MMRR Quarry." While neither accepting nor denying this statement, there <br />are in fact health advisories for radioactivity, as we discussed with CDPHE <br />last week. The operator should be prepared to monitor and intervene at <br />some level of radioactivity. <br />9. The operator suggests that because rocks anticipated for the MMRR <br />quarry do not contain "sulfate" ores, they will not produce acid drainage, <br />and therefore will not mobilize uranium. This is beside the point. Our <br />concern is not acid drainage from weathering of sulfides. Rather it is <br />mobilization of dust bearing radioactive minerals in concentrations that <br />might adversely affect receptors offsite. <br />10.The operator proposes to monitor efFluents from the site for uranium using <br />an assumed ratio of 1:1 for converting pCi/L to ug/L. This ratio makes no <br />geochemical sense and it precludes measurement of other radioactive <br />materials. Also, it may not be necessary under DMG authority. As it is <br />DMG's requirement to control the source of contaminants, it may be <br />reasonable to cut back on such proposed monitoring by evaluating blast <br />hole cuttings for radioactivity, and having a mitigation plan should high <br />levels appear. We should wait for the CDPHE's feedback before finalizing <br />review of this proposal <br />Overall, it seems it would be useful to meet with the operator or their <br />representatives to discuss our ongoing exchange with CDPHE Radiation and Air <br />Poilution Control units. After that, the operator may wish to revise their adequacy <br />response regarding uranium monitoring in light of suggestions from CDPHE, and <br />DMG's subsequent decisions regarding the nature of monitoring. <br />Cc: Bruce Humphries <br />