My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
INSPEC13635
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Inspection
>
INSPEC13635
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:15:12 PM
Creation date
11/18/2007 9:01:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1988112
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Date
11/17/1993
Doc Name
BATTLE MOUNTAIN RESOURCES INC SAN LUIS PN M-88-112 RESPONSE TO 9/30-10/1/93 INSPECTION REPORT
From
BATTLE MOUNTAIN RESOURCES INC
To
DMG
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.
/
6
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 />Larry Oehler <br />November 11, 1993 <br />Page 4 <br />Corrective action item 2 states: <br />"A spill of process water occurred outside of the lined <br />containment facility October 1, 1993 as a result of <br />failure to take proper precautions. <br />Implement your permit approved spill response plsn. <br />Submit a report on the spill and your response. <br />Include measures that will be taken to prevent this <br />type of spill from happening in the future." <br />Section 9.3 of the approved Emergency Response Plan states: <br />"Small incidental controllable spills that do not pos=_ a <br />human health or environmental hazard shall be remedie9 <br />immediately by trained mine personnel." As the Division <br />witnessed, response to the overflow situation was immediate. <br />Also, in accordance with the Emergency Response Plan, BMRI <br />submitted a letter dated October 12, 1993 to the Division <br />fully explaining the circumstances of the overflow event, <br />the response, the water analysis report, and the pre- <br />cautions taken against similar situations in the future. <br />BMRI submitted a second letter dated October 26, 1993 to the <br />Division with additional analytical reports on soil s,smples. <br />As you know the reclaim water system is equipped with a <br />primary, secondary, and tertiary containment design a;~ set <br />forth in the approved permit. At no time did the ove:-flow <br />water (a mix of fresh water and detoxified, reclaim wester) <br />exit the tertiary containment for the mill area. The final <br />analysis report for the water sample collected from tl~e <br />ponded water in the mill area showed cyanide concentr,~tions <br />to be below groundwater and drinking water standards ,st 0.16 <br />ppm CN-wad and 0.16 ppm CN-total. <br />Corrective action item 3 states: <br />"Spacing of drain pipes in the Phase II liner <br />construction area was over the 40' specification. <br />In your submittal for problem 1 above demonstrat~a that <br />the observed 40'-60' pipe spacings will be adequate for <br />the drainage blanket layer to drain the facility as <br />approved in your permit." <br />The Division rough estimated the spacing of underdrai~i pipes <br />which were not completely installed. Amore appropriate <br />method of checking underdrain pipe spacing would be t~~ <br />observe the actual placement and installation of the <br />underdrain pipes during liner cover activities. With the <br />employment of the third party engineering oversight, 1:he <br />actual methodology of underdrain pipe installation wi.Ll be <br />inspected. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.