Laserfiche WebLink
iii iiiiiiiiiiiuiii <br />999 <br />• .- <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman St., Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />303 B66-3567 <br />rnx:303 832-8106 <br />DATE: June 29, 1992 <br />T0: James A. Pendleton <br />FROM: James C. Stevens ~ G`7 <br />OF' ~~(O <br />~~ <br />•ku '~ <br />Roy Ramer, <br />Governor <br />Michael 8. Lang. <br />Division Director <br />RE: San Luis Project (Permit M-88-112) BMR Response to Adequacy Review of <br />TR-06 <br />I have reviewed BMR's response to my comments as referenced above. <br />BMR's response to my comment 1 indicates that the low level of flow rather <br />than lack of evidence of cyanide is justification for maintaining the sampling <br />frequency for the leak detection system on a monthly basis rather then <br />increasing it to bi-weekly. I have not noticed any problem in securing <br />adequate fluid from the system during the Division's bi-weekly sampling trips, <br />so I do not feel flow is inadequate. If it is, then bi-weekly sampling and <br />analysis can be conditioned on the basis of there being sufficient sAmple <br />available. Since the leak detection system already shows evidence of cyanide, <br />I think its monitoring on a more frequent basis is desirable in order to be <br />able to better correlate any variations that 1t may show in cyanide Content <br />with those appearing at other bi-weekly sampling sites. <br />BMR's response to my comment 2 is acceptable. BMR's response to my ttomment 3 <br />is acceptable. As is pointed out, their proposal already included fmllowing <br />my suggested procedure; I missed noting it. <br />JCS/srm/ern <br />3872E <br />