DRMS Comment Objection Intake - DEV 4/1/2024 (33)

Home Browse Search

Comment/Objection Narrative* My comments are specific to technical inadequacies in the permit application that should be cured prior to final DRMS permit approval. The Applicant is also urged to consider these comments prior to applying for a Lake County Conditional Use Permit (CUP.) With the safeguards already proposed along with some recommended improvements, the project can likely be operated in a safe and environmentally protective manner. While the permit application is comprehensive it lacks critical details in aspects of cyanide management. Special attentions should be paid both to hazardous waste management both during plant operations and at closure and decommissioning once operations have ceased. Sufficient bonded funds must be available for the State of Colorado to close the site with third -party project management and labor, in case of a default by its owner. As it is, estimated reclamation costs appear to be low. I recommend, for DRMS' consideration, that the Applicant be requested to agree to the following conditions to demonstrate its commitment to protection of health, safety, and the environment: 1) Applicant becomes a Signatory to the International Cyanide Code so that at a minimum a third -party triennial audit of cyanide operations will be conducted. Third -party audits are critical to verifying compliance. A detailed standalone Cyanide Management Plan should also be provided as part of the permit application. Currently it is only a conceptual (Section 24) plan only promised prior to the start of operations. 2) Applicant recognizes in its permit application that it is subject to compliance with The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as it relates to the identification and management of hazardous waste (e.g., acute P- listed cyanide hazardous wastes) generated during ongoing operations and at decommissioning and closure. DRMS should consult with the CDPHE Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division (HMWMD.) The Applicant prepare a comprehensive and Waste Management Plan detailing its solid and hazardous waste management procedures. 3) Applicant provides additional descriptions of procedures to safeguard workers during cyanide transfer and mixing operations. The permit application describes that introduction of cyanide briquettes into the Mixing Tank will be "manual" or "by hand". What specific engineering controls, such as exhaust fans or dust filters, will prevent to worker exposures? What specific administrative controls such as local cyanide alarms, personal cyanide alarms, and automatic level indicators or high-level alarms to avoid spills will be used? 4) Applicant revises its Figure 12-1 reclamation costs that are the basis for its financial warranty. It should include conservative third -party costs for all aspects of decommissioning, closure and post -closure should the Applicant default on its obligations. Costs should be provided for disposal of hazardous wastes offsite, including unused cyanide reagents, cyanide -contaminated concrete, cyanide flush and purge streams, and cyanide - contaminated equipment. Hazardous waste treatment could occur onsite but that would require testing and compliance with RCRA treatment requirements prior to any land disposal. Post -closure costs for ongoing maintenance and monitoring of the facility are missing. 5) Applicant evaluates and presents to the public the cumulative impacts and the proposed mitigations for all its integrated projects (i.e., slag processing & transportation, removal of gold -bearing mine waste from the area of the Penn Mine and transportation to the milling facility, and the milling facility itself.) The additional environmental impacts associated with disturbing the mine site and traffic and safety concerns associated with haul routes from the east side to the mill are legitimate issues. The cumulative impacts to the community and environment cannot be assessed. Taken individually, impacts may appear minor but taken together impacts could be significant. 6) The Applicant reconsider the location of the Filtered Tailing Deposit (FTD) waste pile. By 2022 the Applicant had received State and County approvals to remediate existing slag deposits adjacent to the Mill site. A cited benefit was to "...improve the appearance of the south entry to Leadville." Now CJK wants to create at least a 40-foot-high monolith of filtered tailings deposits at the Mill site. So, on one hand slag material may be removed or not (the project was to commence in April 2023) while on the other hand a monolith will be created. It is unfortunate that this waste pile is planned to be sited so close to Leadville. The State, County, or both, should consider whether FTD disposal at the Penn Mine site (source) or at a site associated with the existing Lake County Landfill are viable alternatives. Some specifics about technical inadequacies in the permit application are described in the attached. The Applicant should amend or correct its permit application to address the concerns.