My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2009-02-23_PERMIT FILE - M1978222UG
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M1978222UG
>
2009-02-23_PERMIT FILE - M1978222UG
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:43:47 PM
Creation date
2/27/2009 7:46:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1978222UG
IBM Index Class Name
PERMIT FILE
Doc Date
2/23/2009
Doc Name
Preliminary adequacy review
From
DRMS
To
O&G Environmental Consulting LLC
Email Name
GRM
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
2) During the survey of underground workings, operator should document any standing water or inflowing <br />ground water observed, and discharge rates if they are measurable. The findings should be reported to the <br />Division within 30 days of completion of work. <br />3) Runoff from ore storage areas, if used for dust suppression, shall only be used for that purpose in the <br />immediate area of origin. The requirement should be expanded to include other areas. For example, page D- <br />2 discusses the use of pit runoff for dust suppression. Use of that runoff for dust suppression should be <br />limited to the area of origin as well, and should be contained inside the pit area runoff controls. <br />4) Regarding the statement on pg. D-3 "When all the surface ore is removed the waste rock will be graded <br />across the disturbed area" the waste rock should be replaced only in areas where it was originally removed, <br />not for instance, over disturbed areas such as roads or drill platforms peripheral to the pit area that did not <br />contain the waste rock previously. <br />5) Pg. E-1, Exploration Drilling. 1) What is the proposed depth or range of depths for the drill holes? 2) The <br />drill hole abandonment plan should include a provision for abandonment of holes that, however unlikely, <br />encounter ground water. <br />6) Appendix E, well construction and test report for well MMW2, the total depth is not shown in part 4, but <br />part 6 appears to indicate that the well was drilled to a TD of 210 ft, yet casing only extends to 168 ft. Please <br />explain. Was the hole backfilled to 168? Also why was the bottom of the screened interval placed 42 ft above <br />the TD? What was the rationale for screening the well from 133-153 ft bgs? <br />7) Appendix E, well construction and test report for well MMWL The same general questions for MMW2 <br />also apply to well MMW L Was the assumption that 10 ft of screen below the SWL would be sufficient for <br />sampling? <br />8) Exhibit T: "The current configuration of the mine area has precipitation draining off the cliffs on the east <br />side or draining into the pit area." Cliffs? Is it directed off site or back into the pit area? <br />9) Exhibit T: Regarding the statement, "......on this mesa with many mine workings perched several hundred <br />feet above the Paradox Valley and cut by numerous steep canyons the potential aquifers are dry," which <br />potential aquifers are referred to and what are the data to support that the aquifers are dry. <br />This PAR is as indicated the first full review of the application. Responses to staff review by the applicant <br />may result in additional issues as well. Please note that as a matter of expediency all response should be sent <br />directly to staff at the Grand Junction Field Office address noted below rather than the Main Office in <br />Denver.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.