Laserfiche WebLink
Jim Stevens, Bruce Humphries -2- January 12, 1995 <br />1988 humidity cell sample results are inadequate to fully characterize the waste rock <br />material because the tests must be rvn for much longer than 8 weeks. In addition, the 1988 <br />humidity cell effluent was not analyzed for metals which, Bill feels, is absolute]} essential. <br />The Division asked BMRI to nin additional geochemical tests on the waste rock material that <br />is being, or will be, extracted from the West Pit area as a result of technical revrew of <br />TR-018. Pursuant to BM12I's letter to the Division, dated August 23, 1994, ten new samples <br />were sent to Core Laboratories for analysis. On September 2, 1994, a copy of <br />Bill York-Feirn's September 1, 1994 letter was transmitted by FAX to Ms. Alana Scott of <br />BMRI's San Luis office. Ms. Scott was instructed to follow comment number 3 of Bill's <br />letter regarding the length of time the humidity cell tests must run and the analyses of the <br />effluent from the new samples. <br />Ms. Sally Hayes disagrees with reason number 3 of the DMO letter because "Section <br />D.6.2.2 of the approved permit states that the tailings material showed low potential for acid <br />production with almost no acid neutralization potential." Core Lab's analytical repoR, dated <br />September 16, 1988, confirms Ms. Hayes' statement. The tailings samples L.356.11 and <br />L.356.11/1.1 showed more acid producing potential than acid neutralizing potential (26.3 to <br />3.7 and 24.4 to 5.3 respectively). In addition, Core Lab's analytical report, dated <br />May 3, 1981, showed that the tailings solids and rinsed tailings solids have mote acid <br />producing potential than acid neutralizing potential (15.3 to 4.2 and 27.8 and 2.6 <br />respectively). It seems to me that Ms. Hayes disagrees with my reasons for DMO status but <br />she presents evidence to the contrary and/or presents inconclusive evidence. It is my <br />position that the DMO determination for the San Luis Project is the same as it was when the <br />letter was sent to BMRI on November 21, 1994 and I see no reason to send BM&I a revised <br />DMO letter. <br />Attachment <br />M:\OSS1~mm\mema.jd <br />