INSPEC22634 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

._ zl Note: Review of the analytical data, dated 19 March '96, suggests that the Haze! A water is substantially worse than that in the tailings pond. !f that remains true (and a re-Lest should verity this), it raises the question whether ground water in this area generally is of such poor quality and whether any discharge to the surface should be permitted. 18 Apr. '96 DMG (C. Mount) inspection report indicates 2 PB; insufficient spray heads (64 are approved). and spray heads submerged in the pond, with a collapsed filter screen at the pump and fouled spray heads. This inspection was conducted in response to a COME (R. Mason) mlephone report noting water spray fallback outside the pond impoundment. (Spray was observed at various times by various people to be drifting as far as the County Road.) Observations by DMG note numerous deficiencies in both the setup and operation of the spray evaporation system. Requiremems are imposed for correction of deficiencies. 7 May 96 DMG (A. Sorenson} lnspection Report Minds the mill facility generally in compliance for `- those features inspected. 8 May '96 DMG (A. Sorenson) Itr to COM, lnc. (C. Bernhardt) approves reprocessing of sands and slimes from the tailings pond is an effort w recover certain rnncentrates which may Gave been lost to the pond doting earlier mill operations. Process water is to come from the pond or the Haul A. only, and no other solids, liquids, or chemicals may be added. 3 June '96 DMG (A. Sorenson) Inspection Report identifies 1 PB: the two pumps needed to operate the spray evaporation system had been removed; loss of coatainntent of Hazel A water with outflows of two to four GPM (estimated), apparently due to vandalism of a power cable. lend appliation of Hanel A seater was occurring at the time of this inspection. 9 Juae '9li COME (R. Mason) wept-over of M. Steen holdings near mill and visual/sudible inspection of the Hazel A. indicates that security loos required at the moaitaring wellheads for wells 1, 2, and 3 are not is place, that no surface discharge is erident from the Hazel A., but that audible water flow within the edit SuYgests possible overtopping of the main retaining bulkhead, with possible subsurface discharge of water from the edit. it is unlmown whether pumping of the edit hen been accomplished in the week prior to this status audit. 17 June '96 DMG (A. Sorenson) htspection Report finds 8 PB, 1 PV : possible violation of permit r~equiremrnts due to taihrre to install replacement pumps for the tailing pond spray evaporation rystem by lone 10 as specified. Overtopping of the coffer dam and failure of the sump pumps to trigger was observed suggesting imm;nenr foss of co~ra;m„r.+t of process water. Problems include liner holes, no water quality data for land application, soil saturation and pooling of water fmm land application, and no documentation of proper disposal of oil soaked soil. ^ t ^~ ~~ -- ---~ -~