My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-01-12_REVISION - M1979181
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1979181
>
2010-01-12_REVISION - M1979181
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/16/2021 6:03:06 PM
Creation date
4/22/2010 2:26:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1979181
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
1/12/2010
Doc Name
TR-02 Denied
From
DRMS
To
Mount Sneffels Mining Company and Grayling LLC
Type & Sequence
TR2
Email Name
WHE
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.
/
5
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
Memorandum 2 February 11, 2010 <br />Geochemistry Review Ruby Trust Mine <br />http://www.epa.gov/waste/hazard/testmethods/sw846/pdfs/1311 pdfl. The SPLP uses an extraction fluid <br />with pH 5.0 for sites west of the Mississippi River (Section 5.4.2 of the Method 1312 description, which is <br />available at: http://www.el)a.gov/waste/hazard/testmethods/sw846/pdfs/1312.pdf). An extraction fluid pH of <br />2.88 would certainly leach more metals than an extraction fluid of pH 5.0, so the regulatory criteria of Tables <br />5 and 8 are likely elevated with respect to what would be leached from the same material using the SPLP <br />method extraction fluid. Please provide the rationale for why EPA Regulatory Levels derived from the <br />TCLP method would be relevant to SPLP leachate, given the substantially different pH of the two extraction <br />fluids deployed for each test. <br />Additional DRMS comment: DRMS has primacy over EPA at mining sites in Colorado for all water quality <br />concerns with the exception of Underground Injection. As an implementing agency for water quality standards <br />adopted by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC), DRMS will enforce the regulatory <br />criteria presented in WQCC Regulation 41 for ground water and, as needed., Regulation 31 for surface water. <br />The criteria of those Regulations are also applicable to accelerated weathering test leachate. <br />Rock Samples: Several tables show data for three samples collected in 2009: RT-SS-001-121009, RT-SS- <br />002-121009, and RT-SS-003-121009. Page 2 states that "samples of waste rock were collected by Karmen <br />King in 2009." <br />DRMS Comment: Please confirm that the three samples listed above are all indeed waste rock. <br />Table 1: The concentration of Nitrate/Nitrite in the SPLP leachate from the 2008 Tailings sample is quite <br />elevated. <br />DRMS Comment: Is historical blasting on site the likely source of the Nitrate/Nitrite? If blasting did not <br />occur on site historically, please provide an explanation as to the possible source of the elevated <br />Nitrate/Nitrite. <br />Table 3: Analytes. <br />DRMS Questions: On what materials were the carbonate and bicarbonate analyses conducted and what <br />were the standard methods or procedures used? <br />Please explain the Chloride (1312 DI), Sulfate (1312 lDI), and Conductivity (1312 DI) <br />analyses. Were these measured on the 1312 extraction fluid before the SPLP agitation <br />procedure? <br />Was Total Alkalinity measured on the post-agitation extract? <br />Table 4 - ABA Parameter Results using Total Sulfur and Pyritic Sulfur: Please explain why, for a given <br />sample, the reported Acid Neutralization Potential for "ABA Parameters Based on Total Sulfur" is different <br />than the reported Acid Neutralization Potential for "ABA Parameters Based on Pyritic Sulfur." Are not both
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.