Laserfiche WebLink
• REFUSE SAMPLING <br />The refuse material was sampled twice in 1981 to characterize its <br />chemical and physical characteristics. These resuks are presented in Table <br />8. The permk text and accompanying laboratory data sheets give no age for <br />these two samples, however, since the refuse pile was relatively new at this <br />time k is logical to assume that these samples were relatively fresh. The <br />elevated pH, SAR and EC values also support this assumption. <br />Examination of the data in Table 8 suggest that SAR and EC values are <br />quke high in these samples, but that all other values are well within the limits <br />suggested in the WDEO and NMMMD guidelines. Additional refuse samples <br />have been collected from the Southfield Refuse pile in connection with various <br />geotechnical studies performed on this pile. <br />The permit document contains the results of two particle size tests. The <br />portions of this data relative to the sukability evaluation of these materials are <br />presented in Table 9. No age is given for these samples but k is obvious <br />from the high percentage of sand and low percentage of clay that these are <br />relatively fresh samples that had not been weathered when they were <br />collected. <br />1988 SOIL AND REFUSE SAMPLING <br />• In order to characterize the present properties of the Southfield Mine <br />refuse materials, several additional samples were collected on July 22, 1988 <br />and analyzed according to the present suite of overburden parameters listed <br />in the CMLRD guidelines, which did not exist at the time the original refuse <br />and overburden samples were analyzed. These samples were collected and <br />evaluated by IME of Yampa, Colorado and analyzed by ACZ Inc, Laboratory <br />Division of Steamboat Springs, Colorado. Copies of the laboratory data <br />sheets for these samples are presented in Exhibit No. 1 Results of Laboratory <br />Analyses. <br />The average characteristics of the refuse materials sampled in 1988 and <br />a mean comparison with all of the baseline soils that have been salvaged and <br />will be reapplied to the refuse pile is presented in Table 10. <br />This comparison suggests that a number of parameters are significantly <br />different when the soils and refuse materials are compared. Parameters <br />significantly lower in the soils included pH, EC, Ca, Na, SAR, SP, NO3-N, P, <br />Fe, Mn, Sik, CEC, ESP, all forms of sulfur, neutralization potential, ABP, TCS, <br />and B. Parameters lower in the refuse included K and sand. Unfortunately, <br />this comparison treats refuse as a static entity, which k is not. In fact all <br />newly exposed overburden or refuse materials that have been removed from <br />a reduced environment and placed in an aerobic environment immediately <br />undergo very rapid and significant geochemical changes. Perhaps the best <br />summary of this phenomenon is the summary of the overburden <br />characterization studies conducted in connection with the BLM EMRIA <br />• program (Heil 1983) wherein k is reported that much better correlations <br />between plant response and overburden geochemical properties could be <br />obtained after the materials had been subjected to an 'active geochemical <br />weathering environment.' Since so many of these refuse samples were <br />'fresh' and had not been subjected to active 'weathering' the resuks are <br />31 <br />