My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
INSPEC10216
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Inspection
>
INSPEC10216
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:11:47 PM
Creation date
11/18/2007 8:44:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977215
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Date
8/10/1998
Doc Name
BULLDOG PROJECT MINERAL CNTY PN M-77-215
From
HARRY POSEY
To
STEVE SHUEY
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.
Page 1 of 1
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
~ III IIIIIIIIIIIII III ~ <br />INTEROFFICE COMMUNICATION <br />DATE: August 10, 1998 <br />T0: Steve Shuey <br />FROM: Harry Posey <br />RE: Bulldog Project, Mineral County, Permit M-77-215 <br />Thank you for the letter from Allen Cox of Homestake (29 July 1998) with <br />attached analytical results. Having examined the analytical results, I would offer a few <br />observations. <br />As I understand it, toe seeps DT-1 and DT-2 occur below the 9360 portal dump, <br />and are the ones we observed in the field on July 22. Both seeps have elevated metals <br />and somewhat low pH. At issue is whether these seeps contain groundwater from the <br />Bulldog mine or from the land-applied 9360 portal discharge water. In that regazd, it <br />remains to be ]earned whether groundwater has been affected adversely by exposure to <br />underground workings or whether the land-applied water grows contaminated as it flows <br />through the 9360 waste rock dump. <br />The chemical fingerprints of samples DT-1 and DT-2 are remazkably similar. <br />Metals that are significantly above detection limits have virtually the same <br />concentrations. The higher sulfate, TDS and conductivity in DT-1 is compatible with the <br />slightly higher pH, but the differences are actually minor. I would suggest these <br />represent waters from the same source collected at slightly different points on a flow path <br />and possibly very slightly affected by some dilution. <br />The field pH measurements appear to be in error. For solutions derived from <br />pyrite weathering, lab pH values aze typically lower than field pH, but not by more than <br />about 0.2 to 0.3 units. However, in this case, the reported field pH values differ by more <br />than 0.6 units. <br />As you have probably noticed, the concentrations of several metals -zinc, <br />cadmium and copper -exceed aquatic life-protective values. Additionally, the pH is too <br />low for sensitive aquatic species. <br />Given the high cadmium and manganese values of these waters, it may be prudent <br />to know whether these waters aze used for drinking water anywhere in the area. These <br />cadmium levels would be considered dangerous to humans in the short term, and the <br />manganese would be chronically toxic over the long term. <br />cc: Bruce Humphries <br />Allen Sorenson <br />Jim Pendleton <br />c:\hh p\general\bul Ido s <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.