My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-05-10_REVISION - M1977300
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1977300
>
2011-05-10_REVISION - M1977300
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 3:11:57 PM
Creation date
11/8/2011 12:46:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977300
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
5/10/2011
Doc Name
Additional Response and Extension Request.
From
Cotter
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
AM2
Email Name
DB2
AJW
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.
/
38
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
Cotter Corporation (N.S.L.)'s Response to December 14, 2010 Adequacy Review, <br />Comment 11(I) <br />May 10, 2011 <br />Page 7, Item 11(I) <br />The EPP contains no provision for mine pool management other than to ignore it. It appears to <br />be the Operator's intention to use the underground workings as a geologic containment facility <br />for the mine pool water. The mine pool water is contaminated with elevated concentrations of <br />uranium, radium and other constituents as a result of disturbance of toxic material in the <br />underground mine. The Division therefore considers the flooded mine workings to be an <br />impoundment under Hardrock Rule 6.4.21(1)(c), and subject to the regulations thereto. The <br />Board and Division also consider the mine pool to be a threat to human health, property, and the <br />environment due to the risk of offsite excursions. Therefore, in addition to the Board ordered <br />actions described above in adequacy items 1.A and 1.B., Cotter must also proceed with the <br />activities described in adequacy items 3, 4, and S.B. <br />Cotter disagrees that it is "ignor[ing]" the mine pool. Please see the responses to 1(A), 1(B), 3, <br />4, and 5(B). Cotter disagrees that the flooded mine workings are an impoundment under Hard <br />Rock/Metal Mining Rule 6.4.21(1)(c). Please see the Response to Item 1(B). <br />If Cotter were to immediately begin discharge of mine pool water into the creek, many <br />constituents would require treatment prior to discharge. Cotter is proposing to treat the mine <br />pool in situ. In situ treatment will precipitate and stabilize most of the constituents referred to <br />above and will result in reduced mobility. Once stabilized, these materials will remain in a solid <br />phase, in a location where they will remain isolated from environmental release and subsequent <br />potential exposure to humans. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.