Laserfiche WebLink
<br />8. The possibility of testing erosion control mats <br />similar to products produced by North American Green <br />(e.g., SC 150) was discussed relative to the dam faces <br />early in this process. Climax was most interested in <br />the potential o£ using this type of mat for the face <br />of Dam 5 as an alternative to rock facing. However, <br />from the aspect of long term stability, best <br />engineering technology for this dam face (as well as <br />the other dams) appears to be rock facing. <br />9. See #8. Snow fencing also was discussed early in the <br />process of the dust control issue. Snow fencing may <br />still have some applications on the tailing ponds and <br />will be further reviewed during the year. However, <br />its immediate application to the tailing dam areas <br />would be self-defeating by retaining too much moisture <br />in the dams. Reconfiguration and rock facing <br />activities will require dry working conditions for <br />safety and stability. Snow fencing may have more <br />value in the future as revegetation activities are <br />initiated on the flats. Climax will keep the MLRD <br />apprised of its activities regarding snow fencing. <br />10. Climax is still exploring the feasibility of limited <br />use of magnesium chloride on specific areas within the <br />tailing system. Unlike Coherex, magnesium chloride is <br />soluble and can be expected to leach to a degree <br />which, at this point, may or may not be acceptable. <br />Because of specific characteristics of magnesium <br />chloride and Coherex relative to water retention and <br />drying, the two materials are not compatible and would <br />not be used together or on the same areas. Addition- <br />ally, Coherex is more cost effective than magnesium <br />chloride. As additional information is developed <br />regarding magnesium chloride and its potential use at <br />Climax, we will forward this information to the MLRD. <br />11. The use of a Large scale sprinkling system to control <br />dust was analysed by Climax engineers in the <br />mid-1970's and again in 1986. The results of both of <br />these analyses indicated that such a sprinkling system <br />was not cost effective and could not be justified <br />relative to the Coherex system. The maintenance needs <br />and costs of sprinkling at the 11,000' elevation, <br />particularly in consideration of the present manpower <br />pool at the mine, make sprinkling unattractive <br />relative to the use of Coherex. In addition, a long <br />term objective in the management of this tailing <br />system is to dry the ponds thoroughly prior to surface <br />configuration and treatment alternative (e.g., <br />vegetation, rock, etc.). Long term application of <br />water to the surface would be counter-productive to <br />this objective. <br />-3- <br />