Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I N T E R <br />MEMO <br />O F F I C E <br />To: James Dillie <br />From: Berhan keffelew <br />Subject: Battle Mountain Resources Humidity cell test evaluation (Permit nuMber m-88-112 <br />Date: ]0-13-97 <br />Mr. Dillie per your request I have evaluated the following humidity cell test data for the UPPER <br />IMPOUNDMENT. <br />.1) RINSED DATA FOR 42 WEEKS <br />2) UNRINSED DATA FOR 75 WEEKS <br />3) UNRINSED AND RINSED FIRST SAMPLE TEST FOR 30 WEEKS . <br />4) UNRINSED AND RINSED SECOND SAMPLE TEST FOR 30 WEEKS <br />In addition I have also reviewed the October 1, 1993 Battle Mountain Resources, Inc Response <br />to Division's Comments. <br />Acidity and Alkalinity measurements were compazed for each sample. Based on the results, the <br />samples appeaz to exhibit more alkalinity than acidity. In some samples, there wa$ twice the <br />alkalinity than acidity. The Division has placed the following numeric standazds fhr the ground <br />water monitoring wells PH 6.5-8.5 IRON .30-.39 MG/L SULPHATE 250 MC}/L <br />MANGANESE .OS- .12 MG/I, TDS 500 MG/L AND WAD CYANIDE .2 MG/L <br />The humidity test results were compazed with the above numeric standards, with the exception <br />of Cyanide and TDS data which was not part of the Humidity Cell test rsults. Thelresults did not <br />show any significant increases in none of the above numeric standazds.It is my unklerstanding in <br />conversing with Mr. Dillie that the operator had indeed sampled to within five feet of the liner <br />for all but one as requested by the Division in 1993. <br />CC: James Stevens <br />