Laserfiche WebLink
the Rajah 30 was plugged relatively recently (2001), and the 15 gpm previously discharging <br />from the portal maybe looking for another way out; <br />......what is the potential for increased qb hind the double bulkheadfland escape the moountain via <br />the post-mining situation, build up head <br />newly formed springs? <br />5) Pg D-4: Was the treatment plant sized to accommodate the flow that might occur if the <br />measures proposed to minimize mine inflow, e.g., grouting of the Ten Straight and plugging of <br />historic bore holes, are unsuccessful, and in the event of increased mine inflow due to the reasons <br />stated in (4) above? <br />6) The Lyntek Report (Appendix H) states that application of ferric sulfate and barium chloride <br />"will not result in increasing the concentrations of barium, chloride, iron, and sulfate in the <br />treated water above applicable water quality standards." Please provide the projected effluent <br />concentrations of barium, chloride, iron, and sulfate in discharge water from the treatment plant. <br />7) Ground water monitoring: To monitor potential ground water impacts due to leachate from <br />waste rock piles, it may be necessary to install one or more down gradient monitoring wells. <br />The depth to ground water might be extreme, and if so, the applicant should provide a rationale <br />for why monitoring wells are not needed. The applicant proposes only one down gradient <br />ground water monitoring location (PR Spring), and page G-23 states that the PR Spring is not <br />hydraulically connected to the mine workings. If true, then the spring will not be representative <br />of impacts to down gradient ground water due to mining activities. <br />8) The intermittent operational history of uranium mills, and reported problems at the White Mesa <br />Mill (J. Burnell, personal communication., Oct. 24, 2007), suggest a potential shortage of <br />uranium processing capacity in t extended time Ier ods, or would the mine suspend operations? <br />for on-site stockpiling of ore for p <br />9) As stated above, due to the emplacement of underground bulkheads as part of the reclamation <br />plan, there is a concern about post-mine discharge from new springs other than from the mine <br />there is <br />workings. After looking at the newly provided post-mining bulkhead installation plan, <br />also concern about adit discharge. The applicant states that the bulkheads will be placed "to <br />ensure that water seeping into the decline from the lower Brushy Basin aquifer is not allowed to <br />enter the mine workings." However, as hydraulic head builds up behind the bulkheads, what is <br />the possibility of ground water migrating via fractures~or along bedding planes back into the <br />workings ahead of the bulkhead? This perhaps should also be considered in light of the <br />possibility of Colorado moving out of the long-term drought conditions that it is experiencing, <br />and enters conditions that result in re-charging of aquifers and elevated water tables in that part <br />of the state. <br />10) The Mine Plan Map C-2 denotes stormwater drainage from the ore pad will go to a sump and then <br />be directed to the treatment pon address howlthe stormwater from this area w 11 be dire ced t the <br />completed under the NOI, please <br />treatment plant since the configuration is now different. <br />