INSPEC20227 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

NOV- ~r95 MON 6:35 PM TESS~CT PRODUCTIONS FAX NO, 3479713 r P, 3 z Game Fence: Fencing remains rolled on-site, down-slope from the dam crost. Fresh sign indicates numerous deer in the area at this time. Since pond water has not yet frozen, it 'is probable that the pond is being used as a water source by these animals. Trailer Area Berm: Re-harming of the slope just south of the former trailer parking area has been acwmplished; the berm does not appear to have been compacted. .Han, 1 A Portal Bac 11; It was impossible to verify completion of the required fifteen-foot horizontal backfill of the Hazel A edit around the 36" CMP, due to the locked access. There was no discernable change in the outer face of the emplacement since the inspection, other than some sift-in of soils in front of the door. Since there has beers no compaction of back-fill, substantial settling and outwash can be expected during the Spring tneltoff. der 1?ump-Back $ycrsm: Due to the btockod access noted above, it was impossible rfl ascertain status of this system, or water levels behind the bulkhead in the Haze) A. There was no audible evidence of pump activity at the time of our survey; water could be heard dripping into one or more pools beyond sight at the edit entrance. There was no evidence of moisture on the ground surface outside the edit that could reasonably be attributed to seepage from the edit itself. * C'ontAm;nAtrd foil Removal: There is no evidence of removal Of contaminated soil tiom the compressorJvacuum pump shed at the west end of the mill, nor of any preparation to do so. Hazel-A Cleanout: There is no evidence of any clesnout of the Hazel-A edit, or of any preparations to do so. Installation of the doored culvert at the edit entrance bas made cleanout more difficult due to degraded access. It has also made it impossible either to verify or refute assertions as to edit condition made by CUM, Inc. Water •Balance/Effluent Manacemmt: There has not, so far as we are aware, lien any engineering assessme~ of the implications of groundwater inflow rates to the Hazel-A alit observed this Spring with rrgard to required versus available pumping capaaties for the seepage sump and the edit pumpback to the tailings pond. Nor has there been any evaluation of the available pond freeboard (even if properly lined and anchored) relative to requiremerns under a reasonable scenario. For example, a week's inflow to the Hazel-A at a mere ten gallons per minute aggregates to more than one hundred thousand (100,000) gallons per weak to the tailings pond, exclusive of any aecumuhuions at the pond due to direct infall and surface runoff. At the height of last Spring's wet weather, and for some days thereafter, rapid inflow of water W the Haul-A edit was observed at and for perhaps fiReen feet back from the entrance, due to fracturing of the overlying rock. From outside the edit mouth,, such flow will be impossible to distinguish from flows originating behind the main bulkhead, and will have to be repeated as possible discharge violations, The presets scheme seems set up for failure.