REP17941

• Permit No: C1981018
• IBM Index Class Name: Report
• Doc Date: 3/15/1995
• Doc Name: REVIEW OF RESPONSES TO ANNUAL HYDROLOGY REPORT REVIEW DESERADO MINE C-81-018
• From: DMG
• To: WESTERN FUELS - UTAH
• Permit Index Doc Type: HYDROLOGY REPORT
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

iii iuiiiiiiiiiiii
sss
.. -
/b1~ ~'i4q
STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Depadmern of Natural Resources
131 3 Sherman SL, Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80201
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
March 15, 1995
Mr. Murari P. Shrestha
Assistant Manager of Engineering
Western Fuels - IItah
405 IIrban Street - Suite 305
Lakewood, Co 80228
Re: Review of Responses to Annual Hydrology Report Review
Deserado Mine (C-81-018)
Dear Mr. Shrestha:
I~~~~
DEPAR'T'MENT OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Roy Rumer
Governor
lames 5. LuchheaA
Eaecmive Uuecbr
Michael y. Long
Dwiswn Oneoar
The Division has reviewed your responses to our review of the 1993
and 1994 Annual Hydrology reports for the Deserado Mine. Some of
the responses have raised additional questions or concerns which
are transmitted herewith. The numbering sequence below follows
that of the original adequacy review dated March 7, 1995 and those
concerns which were adequately addressed in your response are
omitted from this letter.
2c) WFU states that Table 2-1 of the AHR has been revised to show
that groundwater samples are analyzed for dissolved metals and
surface water samples are analyzed for total metals. This is
a step in the right direction, however, another question that
comes to mind is: what has actually been done in the past?
Were groundwater samples analyzed for total or dissolved
metals?
5) The referenced sentence speaks only in general terms to the
predicted impacts of subsidence on water level. Typically,
after a mine has been in operation for some time, and
observations confirm (or contradict) predicted impacts, the
PHC is modified to quantitatively describe observed impacts,
and, if relevant, quantify or refine previous quantifications
of predicted impacts. This is what the Division is asking for
here. The revision need not be a major undertaking. A
paragraph or two, quantitatively describing observed impacts
and predicting future impacts based on extrapolation of
observations would suffice. This will be required at the next
midterm review. However, if WFU wishes to address this issue
earlier, a separate technical revision may be submitted.