ENFORCE29292 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

6) There are a number of statements where "the lab was in error" or "data was aberrant" (e.g., pages 22, 29). In the past we have observed this type df dismissal of data when ever lab figures did not correlate with expected results. 7) On page 32 the statement is made that rinsed sam for leachate testing however, in Table 3.8 the report cites data for ri pper impoundment operational tailings. 8) Does acid pH used in leachate test cause cyanide to go into gaseous form and, if so, is this gas captured and measured as part of the testing procedure? 9) Pages 34-35: Was only one sample measured for pore water? 10) Is BMG planning to use the tailings pond as a part of a future landfi~l site? P.A.E.S. is deeply concerned that the Battle Mountain tailings site contains unique chemical features which were not planned for in the initial permit application. Because high concentrations of cyanide were so stratified we feel that there is uncertainty of the actual chemical profile of the p~nd and uniform detoxification of its contents. We are further concerned that the deterioration of the single plastic liner will be hasten as a result of the by-products of several detoxification compounds. We are aware that BMG's plastic liner was partly installed in winter conditions on rugged, often steep, rocky terrain, with malfunctiohing wedge welders. In reviewing a series of evaluative letters from Allen Sorenson (April to June 1992) regarding primary and secondary composite liner) ,especially the June 24 letter. We feel that there is a distinct possibilityof liner failure, in the future, because leakage calculations were underestimatdd, permeability assumptions were approximated, and quality control of only 0.1 square cm./acre of liner is unproven. After the Summitville mishap with] liner instillation we feel that we must proceed with caution especially when a large volume of unknown chemical compounds and toxic tailings are loca~ed above our community aquifer.