Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment Mining topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mine operator briefs Fairfield council on tailings dam, monitoring and arsenic concerns
Summary
A company that manages a historic mine and tailings impoundment told the Fairfield Town Council it has regraded and fenced much of the site, follows a global industry standard, and maintains monitoring and emergency plans after residents raised arsenic and cyanide concerns.
A company representative updated the Fairfield Town Council on remediation and ongoing monitoring at a century‑old mining and tailings facility, outlining engineering controls, third‑party reviews and a plan to keep local officials informed.
The presenter said the main impoundment measures about 400 feet in height, is operated as a closed system and has undergone regrading and revegetation. The site is managed under GISTM, the global industry standard for tailings management, the company said, and receives both internal and external engineering reviews. "We took extensive measures during planning, design, construction, operation, decommissioning and reclamation," the company representative said, adding the firm conducts regular monitoring and reports to the State of Utah’s dam safety office.
Why it matters: Councilors and nearby residents pressed the company about long‑term contamination risks. The presenter acknowledged the facility’s legacy but said recent work has reduced on‑site water from roughly 500 million gallons to about 25 million and that water‑management improvements and monitoring wells are in place.
During a question‑and‑answer period, residents raised specific concerns about arsenic and cyanide. One resident said, "The cyanide leaching operation is scary," and warned that once arsenic reaches springs "it's here." The company responded that it has three sampling wells between the tailings facility and the town on company property and that seepage monitoring is ongoing. The presenter said the current classification of the site reflects potential high consequences and that the firm is finishing water‑management upgrades before moving to a final closure budget.
Council outcome and next steps: The council did not take regulatory action at the meeting. The company agreed to share its slide deck with town staff and to provide contact information for follow‑up; council members asked staff to keep the town updated on monitoring results.
What remained unresolved: Residents asked whether third‑party inspections include testing in Fairfield and how often external reviews occur. The company said it performs periodic third‑party reviews but that many inspections focus on the site itself rather than downstream properties; it committed to continuing outreach and providing more documentation on inspection timing.
