My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-06-28_REVISION - M1979181
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1979181
>
2010-06-28_REVISION - M1979181
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 2:22:45 PM
Creation date
7/2/2010 8:32:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1979181
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
6/28/2010
Doc Name
Technical adequacy review letter
From
DRMS
To
Grayling LLC
Type & Sequence
AM1
Email Name
RCO
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.
/
4
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
The placement of milled sub-grade ore materials underground may fall under the authority of the EPA, and may require <br />an underground injection permit. Please state whether you have inquired about the need for such a permit, and whether <br />EPA has placed any restrictions on the proposed plans. <br />During mining and milling the need for the sediment pond(s) is obvious, since it functions to settle out suspended solids. <br />However, there are numerous references in the discussion about the sediment pond reducing or eliminating dissolved <br />solids. Properly designed, the sediment ponds will accept the total discharge, settle out the suspended sediments, and <br />allow clarified water to pass to Sneffels Creek. There is no active water treatment occurring, and no special characteristic <br />of the rock comprising the sediment ponds. It is assumed that all dissolved solids that enter the ponds remain dissolved <br />and therefore leave with the effluent. Please comment. <br />The surface map being used in the application (Figure E.1) is a modified version of Steve Fearn's map, which he signed <br />on 3/18/08. Its original version included: a sediment pond measuring 23 ft x 50 ft, set away from the existing roadway, <br />with a buried discharge pipe leading to the slope above the creek, where the discharge reports to. The changes that were <br />made to the map that was submitted under this application include eliminating the buried pipeline, no labeling of the <br />discharge point, and showing a series of two sediment pond cells which do not appear to be depicted in the correct <br />location. (Note: During the May 27, 2010 inspection, three cells were observed, with the majority of the area they <br />occupied appearing to be located in the "pre-law roads" area. The lowest cell was shallow enough to be crossed by <br />vehicle, with no culvert or apparent consideration for the increase in turbidity every time equipment or vehicle crosses it <br />to access the ore pad. It is suspected that where the water goes underground is the remnant flow path from where the <br />former sediment pond was recently filled in with waste rock. Onsite personnel during the inspection stated that the <br />sediment pond water simply "infiltrated" and stated they knew of no connection between infiltrated water and the 6-inch <br />PVC pipe that was observed discharging water to Sneffels Creek. Given these discrepancies in the map and observed <br />facilities, please provide a better description of the sediment ponds and the discharge pipe, and show them on the map. <br />Please provide a description of the water sampling locations, as well as show them on a map. <br />Please provide information about the frequency of the "routine" sampling of the sub-grade ore. What parameters or <br />analytes will be included? Will the analyses be done onsite or sent to a lab? Presuming that you will be required to send <br />the Division copies of the analyses, under what type of schedule do you propose that the analyses be sent to the Division? <br />Ore that has been processed will be placed on the concrete ore pad for hauling or sacking. Please describe whether the <br />ore has had sufficient opportunity to decant (where, how, for how long or until what moisture content). The ore pad is <br />concrete, but it is not bermed and provides little containment. Please provide description of how loose ore or sacked ore <br />can be adequately handled or contained, and how loss of ore or leaching of minerals due to precipitation will be avoided. <br />The waste rock areas that are currently affected and which may become affected by future storage of waste rock are very <br />limited in the permitted area. Additional rock will likely be placed by dumping it on the pad, as all current waste rock has <br />been, by mucker or loader. Such placement does not assure compaction or stable side slope gradients. The edge of the <br />waste dump currently in the proximity of Sneffels Creek is of concern to this office, given to the potential for failure due <br />to instability or inadvertent loss from snowslide. As more waste rock is dumped, the dump slopes will continue to <br />become higher, but the mining plan provides no discussion about dump slope gradients, stability, setbacks, or material <br />placement. Also, there is no estimate given for the amount of waste rock that may potentially be placed, yet still <br />providing for onsite stability and reasonable future land use for general agriculture. (The operator is reminded that <br />sloughing, erosion or loss of dump material, involving excursions outside the permitted area boundary, may be a possible <br />violation.) Please provide information about the waste rock and dump slopes, regarding the issues identified above.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.