My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-09-14_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Enforcement
>
Minerals
>
M1977300
>
2010-09-14_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:22:20 PM
Creation date
9/21/2010 8:03:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977300
IBM Index Class Name
ENFORCEMENT
Doc Date
9/14/2010
Doc Name
Reply of Cotter Corporation/ Petition for Reconsideration.
From
Holme Roberts & Owen LLP
To
DRMS
Email Name
DB2
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.
/
22
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
regulatory agencies. It expanded that system to include Sump No. 4 on August 16, 2010 and to <br />include monitor well ("MW") 9 on August 19, 2010. Cotter is currently planning to expand the <br />system to include MW 6 in the event that additional pumping and treatment in the vicinity of the <br />primary area of groundwater loading to Ralston Creek can help to expedite the process. <br />The treatment system has been effective in removing uranium that otherwise would have <br />reported to Ralston Creek. The treatment system has removed about 89 pounds of uranium from <br />the alluvium from July 2, 2010 to September 5, 2010. See Schwartzwalder Mine at 1, by Susan <br />A. Wyman, P.E., P.G., Whetstone Associates ("Whetstone"), September 13, 2010, attached as <br />Exhibit 1. In addition, uranium concentrations on August 10, 2010 were reduced to 16 percent <br />of the concentrations in August 2009 (0.259 mg/L in 2010 versus 1.64 mg/L in 2009). Id. <br />The concentrations in Ralston Creek, however, still exceed the water quality standard of <br />0.03 mg/L. Id. The pumping system had not intercepted all of the contaminated water in the <br />alluvium before it flowed into Ralston Creek for three reasons. Id. First, some of the <br />groundwater already was beyond the collection points Sump No. 1, Sump No. 4, and MW 9 by <br />the time the treatment systems started operating and could not be pumped back into the treatment <br />system, so a lag time exists in seeing the effectiveness of the interception system. Id. Whetstone <br />calculates that aquifer transport times between Sump No. 1 and Ralston Creek are in the range of <br />30 to 151 days. Second, pumping from Sump No. 1 alone was insufficient to fully capture the <br />groundwater in the alluvial system. Id. at 2. Third, pumping at Sump No. 4 and MW 9 did not <br />begin until August 16 and 19, 2010, respectively. Id. As a result, the benefits of this portion of <br />the water treatment system would not be evident in the results of water quality samples collected <br />during July 2010 and August 2010. Id. <br />2 <br />#1493118 vi den
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.