Laserfiche WebLink
Page 1 of 2 <br />Means, Russ <br />Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 5:34 AM <br />To: Bird, David; Means, Russ <br />Cc: Pickford, Kate; Sorenson, Allen; Mount, Carl <br />Subject: RE: Comments to Whirlwind PAR response <br />Spam: 3.16822081454782 E-03 <br />G. Russell Means <br />Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety <br />Grand Junction Field Office <br />101 S. 3rd, St., Suite 301 <br />Grand Junction, Colorado 81 SO1 <br />970-241-1117 <br />I AGREE GOOD COMMENTS ! In addition, if BULK Head is the solution selected to capture all the water and CONTAIN it <br />with in the under ground workings AFTER CLOSURE„ DRMS should put a condition to require the operator to monitor for <br />seeps and discharges after closure and cessation of water treatment .How long after closure depends on the timE~ that <br />was calculated for the water to reach a hydrostatic steady state flow. If significant seeps and discharges are observed, <br />that don't meet the designated numeric protection levels, operator should agree to obtain an NPDES discharge pE~rmit <br />from CDOH&E. Just a thought. <br />From: Bird, David <br />Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 4:25 PM <br />To: Means, Russ <br />Cc: Pickford, Kate; Keffelew, Berhan; Sorenson, Allen; Mount, Carl <br />Subject: Comments to Whirlwind PAR response <br />Russ <br />Here are my comments on the Whirlwind PAR response. Memo to come later. <br />1) Pg 3. Applicant states that the hydraulic conductivity of the Salt Wash unit was tested to <br />be 2.5 x 10-3 m/day, and that the unit "will transmit water but at a very slow rate." In fact, <br />2.5 x 10-3 m/day falls in the mid-range of sandstone units (Freeze and Cherry, 1979), <br />which typically are considered good aquifers due to their water production capabilities. <br />Characterizing the transmissive properties of the unit as "very slow" may not be entirely <br />accurate. <br />2/6/2008 <br />