Laserfiche WebLink
(Page 2) <br />MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID #: 001980-9aa <br />INSPECTION DATE: 2.495iI X1/2.410 INSPECTORS INITIALS: -BK- <br />OBSERVATIONS <br />The Division conducted an inspection of the site after receiving a message from Mr. Tim <br />Comer about a possible off lined area cyanide incursion along the Phase IV C pad area. <br />The Division had scheduled to meet with CC&V'S Engineering staff to go over some concerns <br />regarding Technical Revision 57. The TR proposes to apply lime directly into the pad <br />utilizing ejection well method. The method developed by Metal Recovery Solutions, <br />LLC(MRS)for the Hydro Jex program. The plan is to apply the lime to within 100 feet of <br />liner. <br />On our way to the mine received the call regarding the solution off liner. This area had <br />undergone sever testing in the past due to excess solution being reported to the Phase IV <br />Low Volume Solution Collection system. <br />According to Mr. Comer, once the operator noticed the solution off liner, application of <br />solution onto the pad west of the leak was ceased and temporary measure were taken. No <br />solution ever left the pad area it all reported to the Phase IV ponds. Even though the <br />operator had in place a minimum reporting criteria, which is if any cyanide solution <br />reports outside of a lined area in excess of 10 lbs of Sodium Cyanide / ton of ore, DRMS <br />had instructed the operator to report any leaks outside of the containment lined area, <br />which they did as requested. <br />With Tim Comer and Mark Vanoni present the problem area was inspected. A small rubber <br />tired excavator was exposing the area of concern to determine the extent of the area that <br />was outside of liner. The leaching solution was migrating outside of a small geomembrane <br />unlined area and jumping back to a lined area. No solution ever left the pregnant <br />solution collection system at any given time. According to Tim, the total amount of <br />solution that was best estimated to leave the lined area never even come close to the <br />reporting criteria. In house testing of samples of the area that was estimated to have <br />been contaminated by cyanide came back below detect for wad cyanide. <br />Both the Division and the operator had been testing solution and surface water drainage <br />samples in the area for the past year due to excess solution reporting in Phase IV Low <br />Volume Solution Collection system. Numerous samples were sent to compare with the actual <br />discharge from the low volume solution collection sumps. Both the operator and DRMS, <br />could not detect a clear distinguishable foot print that could explain the source of the <br />solution. Now it appears the source of the solution was both process solution and surface <br />water drainage from upgrading of the leak area. <br />CC&V were informed even though the solution that was off lined area was well below the <br />reporting criteria and none of it ever left the pregnant solution collection systems, it <br />will still be reported as a possible problem, with a permanent fix . The fix well more <br />than likely include expansion of the lined area so no solution will ever lea the lined <br />area and constant monitoring until a comfort level is established prior to full <br />application of solution in this area, and informed the operator to notify the Division <br />once all the liner in the area was exposed. <br />The operator agreed with the Division's stand on the issue. <br />ON 3/2/10, the area was inspected after the liner was exposed. Exposed liner was walked, <br />as expected when removing ore from liner, there were some minor tears in the liner but <br />the temporary liner placed along the leak area was now functioning as applied and no <br />solution and surface drainage was leaving the lined area. Low volume solution collection <br />sump # 4 was well below the two feet of hydrostatic head. Mr. Comer asked if the operator <br />could gradually apply solution to see where the actual problem was so the permanent fix <br />will be in place. The Division agreed the only way to find out where the jump was <br />occurring was by selective application of solution and verbally granted the request to <br />selectivity apply solution and frequent monitoring of the area, to establish cause. Once <br />the cause is established the design Engineer will submit the permanent solution in the <br />form of a technical revision.