My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL51208
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL51208
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:37:37 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 6:37:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1980244
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
2/21/1995
Doc Name
CRESSON MINE HEAP LEACH PAD-PHASE 1 AUDIT OF LEAK COLLECTION SYSTEM PERFORMANCE PN C-80-244
From
DMG
To
BERHAN KEFFELEW
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Memo to Berhaa Keffelew <br />CRESSON Leak Collection Audit <br />page 3 <br /> <br />required to quantify, record and report the volume of fluids pumped <br />from the leak collection sump. Further, the operator is required <br />to sample and analyze the water chemistry of the leak collection <br />effluent. <br />During my February 3, 1995 inspection, I inspected the leak <br />collection pipelines, controls pressure transducer readouts and <br />flow meter. Two submersible pumps are installed through 6 inch <br />plastic pipe from the southern rim of the heap leach pad. Cresson <br />has encountered difficulty placing these pumps into operation. <br />John Hardaway reported that they had been removed seven times for <br />modifications. He believed they would be fully operational by the <br />following day. John reported that as of February 3rd the pumps <br />have been activated four times with a total of 7700 gallons of <br />effluent being returned to the heap fluid circuit. During their <br />inspection on February 17, 1995, Messrs. Keffelew and Long were <br />informed by John Hardaway that additional fluid had been pumped <br />from the leak collection sump, at an increasing frequency. <br />However, John also informed them that CC&VG had determined that the <br />flow meter was reading erroneously high because of air entrained in <br />the effluent flow. CC&VG had grossly recalibrated the flow rate <br />based on simple volumetric measurements during pumping episodes. <br />However CC&VG had not reduced the recalibrated flow volumes. <br />During my February 3rd inspection, John Hardaway indicated that <br />samples of the effluent are collected by CC&VG each time the pumps <br />are activated. Field determinations for Cyanide are made by CC&VG <br />using a simplistic HACH test kit. Samples are then submitted to <br />Accu-Labs Cyanide analysis, which routinely requires a month or <br />more for reporting. As of February 3rd only one analytical set of <br />results, for a sample collected two days after fluid from ponds 5 <br />and 5A was first applied to the ore. Mr. Hardaway postulated that <br />this initial fluid is largely remnant from precipitation which fell <br />during construction and was entrained while the leak collection <br />filter layer was open to the environment. During the February 17th <br />inspection, John reported to Berhan and Mike that the Cyanide <br />concentration in the leak collection effluent has been increasing. <br />Leak Collection Audit <br />As I mentioned in concluding my introduction, I believe it would be <br />appropriate for CC&VG to complete an audit of the fluid collected <br />by the leak collection system. The permit does not specify the <br />performance of this audit. In light of the fact that remedy of any <br />liner or leak collection system problems will become increasingly <br />difficult as more ore and processing fluid are placed on the pad, <br />it is important to verify proper operation as early as possible. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.