Laserfiche WebLink
l <br /> INSPECTION REPORT - PAGE 3 <br /> FILE NO. 77-378 <br /> DATE: July 10, 1985 <br /> t <br /> disposed at the base of the waste rock dump. This is not approved. The <br /> largest problem with this dump is the improper and inadequate disposal <br /> of mine trash. Numerous unmarked barrels, old mine equipment, large <br /> volumes of trash, etc. , are incorporated randomly into the pile with no <br /> concern for geotechnical stability. This disposal of mine trash is not <br /> addressed in the permit. See Recommendation No. 3. <br /> Millsite and Tailings Disposal Area <br /> 7. When the mill site area was inspected, the mill was not in operation. <br /> There was no discharge from the mill to the tailings ponds. It was <br /> noted that a small borrow area above the mill building was excavated for <br /> fill material for the Colorado Division of Highways. State Highway 110 <br /> had been washed out approximately one-quarter mile southwest of the <br /> mill , adjacent to the tailings area. It was discussed that Standard <br /> Metals is responsible for the reclamation of this borrow pit. It should <br /> be noted that tailings have been used as road embankment and backfill <br /> material . <br /> 8. Much trash has been disposed on this site. Some of the trash has been <br /> from the town of Silverton, in fact, the town of Silverton was permitted <br /> at one time to dispose trash at this site. It was discussed that the <br /> town trash is no longer disposed at the mill site. However, mine <br /> related refuse is being disposed on the inactive Tailings No. 1 pile. <br /> It appears that this refuse pile was constructed with some engineering <br /> concern. <br /> 9. The tailings ponds were inspected. Numerous test plots on the outslopes <br /> of Tailings Pond No. 2 have successful revegetation. These plots have <br /> been irrigated. The plots on the top of this pile were not as <br /> successful . <br /> 10. Tailing ponds No. 3 and No. 4 (active areas) both have undiverted spring <br /> inflow. Tailings Pond No. 3 had approximately 30 gpm inflow and <br /> standing water on top of the pile. Tailings Pond No. 4 had <br /> approximately 20 gpm inflow and approximately 10 feet of standing <br /> water. It was discussed that these springs could be diverted to <br /> minimize effects to water quality. Tailings have been cycloned for <br /> particle separation (+200 and -200) . See Recommendation No. 4. <br />