Laserfiche WebLink
FROM COSTILLA COuNTY• DKKEEPER PHONE N0. : 719672.2 <br /> <br />I~I'~ ~III'~~I'II I~I <br />9s9 <br />PEOPLES ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SERVICES <br />RT.1 BOX 3-A <br />SAN LUIS, COLORADn 81 t 52 <br />June 11, 1992 <br />Mine Land Reclamation Division <br />131:1 Sherman St. Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado <br />Attn; Dr, James Pendleton <br />Dear Dr. Pendleton, <br />Peoples Alternative Energy Services (PASS) would like to comment vr1 <br />materials we have received in the past month regarding the current state <br />of the Battle Mountain Gold (BMG) issue. <br />1) PASS would like to know if data on cyanide have been taken from <br />random or same points. Also at what level (depth) in the pond Mere <br />samples taken? Is it better to have consistent sartlpling points rather then <br />random points? If samples have been taken at random paints and at only <br />orte yr two levels then how accurate is historical dataT Because <br />stratification was noted in a June 2 letter to BMG, by Harry Posey of your <br />staff, we would like to ask that the Division to clarify the consistency of <br />vertical and horizontal sampling points. We also would like to reinforce <br />the importance of vertical and horizontal sampling. <br />2) We would also like to voice our concern about all the assumptions <br />regarding the actual levels of cyanide. Does anyone really know how <br />much cyanide there is in the ponds or are we [orally dependent on <br />theoretical assumptions which always seem to rrfute the validity of testing <br />results? Evaluations of cyanide levels depend vn correct assumptions--and <br />it is our feeling that laboratory testing are al best vn]y (if informed) <br />guesses. <br />3) We are also wondering if BMCs or the 1ivision has put all data g8thered <br />on cyanide to date (since Septenlber 1991 or earlier) into a compuroer <br />format for better cross-referencing? <br />4) Are testing labs nlvrlitvring matrix interference? !n their "adequacy <br />letter responses" (#2) BMG consuliauts stated that thiocyanate caused <br />interference In resting from the start. We noticed that often thiocyranate <br />interference has been used to discredit test results. To clear up the cloud <br />over the validity of the data all limitations need to be considered. Also are <br />labs now considering matrix interference by carbonate after Peroxide is <br />added? <br />P(~1 <br />i <br />5} when wilt a sedimentary core sample be taken? <br />