My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV09134
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV09134
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 1:09:39 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 10:00:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981008
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
10/30/1995
Doc Name
Review Letter
From
Kent Gorham
To
Harry Ranney
Type & Sequence
TR24
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.
/
2
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
'• <br />• <br /> <br />c~Q g <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman St., Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Phone: (3031 866-3567 <br />FAX: (3031 832-8106 <br />Date: October 30, 1995 <br />To: Harry Ranney ,/r~ <br />From: Kent Gorham Cyr' <br />~~~ <br />DEPARTMENT OF <br />NATURAL <br />RESOURCES <br />Roy Romer <br />Governor <br />RE: Hydrologic Monitoring Plan Reduction, TR-24, New Horizon M~i 6e Dihectndr <br />C-8 1- ~~$ Michael B. Long <br />Division Director <br />As per your request, I reviewed the information submitted by <br />western. Fuels Association, Inc. (WFC) for the New Horizon Mine. I <br />reviewed the original revision proposal, the Division's adequacy <br />comments and the WFC response to those comments. I also reviewed <br />the currently approved mining permit and the baseline data for many <br />of the wells located at this site. I have attempted to organize my <br />comments as they are proposed in the operators letter of September <br />27, 1995. <br />I concur with the elimination of the five groundwater wells <br />and the two surface water sites as defined by the operator in <br />items numbered 1-7. <br />I also concur, as Randy Price has done previously, with the <br />sampling frequency proposed by the operator. I will add that <br />due to this minimum amount of sampling, the operator will be <br />expected to conduct the sampling program with few, if any <br />misses. The Division should also review the data carefully to <br />determine if impacts are present and subsequently require <br />monitoring plan changes as appropriate. <br />3. I do not concur with the sampling parameters as proposed by <br />the operator. Apparently, there is no difference in sampling <br />parameters between surface and groundwater, which is <br />inappropriate. Given the minimum ameunt of samples collected, <br />it is important that the Division get a full-suite sample <br />which can be compared to baseline information. After review <br />of the information submitted by the operator and the baseline <br />data, I would approve of the following sampling parameter <br />lists. Please note the difference between dissolved (dis) <br />analysis vs. total recoverable (tot rec): <br />Groundwater <br />Alkalinity <br />Aluminum (dis) <br />Bicarbonate (dis) <br />Calcium (dis) <br />Carbonate (dis) <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.