My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2016-04-19_INSPECTION - M1980244
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Inspection
>
Minerals
>
M1980244
>
2016-04-19_INSPECTION - M1980244
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:20:55 PM
Creation date
4/26/2016 8:57:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1980244
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Date
4/19/2016
Doc Name
Inspection Report
From
DRMS
To
CC&V
Inspection Date
3/15/2016
Email Name
TC1
ERR
WHE
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.
/
11
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
PERMIT #: M-1980-244 <br />INSPECTOR’S INITIALS: TC1 <br />INSPECTION DATE: March 15, 2016 <br /> <br /> <br />Page 2 of 10 <br /> <br />OBSERVATIONS <br /> <br />The Division conducted a monitoring inspection of the site on March 15, 2016. Mr. Marc Tidquist represented <br />the Operator during various parts of the inspection . Tim Cazier and Wally Erickson represented the Division. <br />The following facilities were inspected during this site visit: <br /> High Grade Mill platform seep – status, field investigation; <br /> Arequa Gulch Valley Leach Facility (AGVLF) – ponded solution check; <br /> Squaw Gulch Valley Leach Facility (SGVLF) – PSSA pond status; <br /> East Cresson Overburden Storage Area (ECOSA) – field stability observations (south end); <br /> Appurtenant Environmental Protection Facilities (EPFs): <br />o AGVLF water level check. <br /> <br />On Site Meetings: <br />Meeting I: The Division representatives met with representatives from CC&V Projects and NewFields (CC&V <br />quality assurance contractor) to discuss the Division’s expectations for future quality assurance report <br />submittals. The discussion focused on record of construction drawings and how to deal with deviations from <br />approved specifications. <br />Meeting II: After the inspection the Division representatives met with Ms. Meg Burt and Mr. Tidquist to discuss <br />the quality assurance meeting and the mill seep understanding and status. Based on observations and <br />discussions in the location of the mill seep, CC&V agreed to revise Mr. Hank ’s February 24, 2016 response to <br />“DRMS question on drainage from the southeast corner of the High Grade Mill Pad”. The revised response <br />should 1) explain mill process water containment, 2) address the observed staining, 3) discuss the relatively <br />small affected area, 4) commit to monitoring the seep, and 5) provide a schedule for containment with the <br />planned SGVLF liner tie-in to the mill platform liner. The need for this revised response is cited as a problem <br />on page 1 of this report for the purpose of tracking CC&V’s response. The Division will continue to monitor <br />the mill seep and it was agreed to convene a meeting with CC&V, the Division and NewFields once specification <br />changes have been finalized. <br />High Grade Mill platform seep: Ron DiDonato (CC&V) showed where the mine had surveyed and staked the <br />edge of liner on the SW corner of the Mill platform (see Photos 1 and 2). The surveyed edge of liner was walked <br />and Mr. DiDonato pointed out that the light brown staining observed from a distance and thought by the <br />Division to be a chemical precipitate was actually softer mater ial and believed to be a dried moss or algae (see <br />Photo 3). A similar moss/algae was observed at the Phase V low volume collection system discharge (see Photo <br />4) later during this inspection. <br />Bird balls were observed in the infiltration trench on north side of the Phase IV AGVLF, south across the sediment <br />pond from the Mill platform (see Photo 5). Mine personnel characterized this water as mill water with some <br />cyanide. This inspector asked if a stability analysis had been performed to assess what affect the infiltration <br />trench might have on the slope stability of the AGVLF in this area. Mine personnel responded that geotechnical <br />specialists have reviewed the scenario, but that no report has been generated yet. <br /> <br />AGVLF Inspection: The top of the Phase IV AGVLF was inspected. No ponded solution was observed. <br />SGVLF Inspection: The previously observed pool in the SGVLF PSSA was observed to be back filled and covered <br />(see Photo 6). This ongoing problem is now considered to be mitigated. <br />East Cresson Overburden Storage Area: The southeast portion of the ECOSA was driven and partially walked to
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.