My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-11-23_PERMIT FILE - M2009076
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2009076
>
2010-11-23_PERMIT FILE - M2009076
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:27:15 PM
Creation date
11/23/2010 1:49:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2009076
IBM Index Class Name
PERMIT FILE
Doc Date
11/23/2010
Doc Name
Adequacy Review Response #3
From
Clear Creek County Clerk and Recorder
To
DRMS
Email Name
JLE
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.
/
50
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
100 <br />0 <br />W <br />75 <br />V) <br />0 <br />a <br />1- 50 <br />z <br />W <br />U <br />a <br />d 25 <br />O <br />FIGURE 1. HEAVY METAL BEHAVIOR AS A FUNCTION OF PH IN ARGO WATER. <br />The EPA currently is doing extensive monitoring of ground water sources (as stated earlier, The Big Five Tunnel <br />drainage is monitored, collected, and pumped to the Argo Tunnel Treatment Facility located in Idaho Springs). <br />Proposed Point of Compliance: <br />DRMS has determined that a practice based ground water protection plan be applied to this operation through the <br />implementation of a composite liner system under the Tailings Impoundment. Because of this, there will be no <br />ground water point of compliance or quality data proposed. <br />For education purposes the pre-existing, baseline quality of ground water beneath the proposed facility has been <br />provided. Please refer to "Explanation of Significant Differences Big Five Tunnel Discharge", attached at the end of <br />this Exhibit C. The Big Five Tunnel is within the vicinity beneath the proposed disposal area at a depth of <br />approximately 1,100 feet. The condition of the existing ground water (Table 1.0 in this publication) is significantly <br />worse than the mill process water (see lab analysis of proposed waste stream attached). <br />Page 14 of 37 <br />2 3 4 5 6 7 8 <br />PH
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.