|
• .i t ''
<br />2
<br />of the State without WQCD permit. Calculations and parametric analyses ~ 13, 20, 21, 22, 23~ suggest
<br />that Ne system, as presently designed and implemented cannot meet regulatory and legal
<br />requirements without recourse I.o land application of low quality process water {i.e. Hazel A
<br />water)J27J; even this approach may lead to ponding and surface runotl~ under worst-case conditions,
<br />a violation of imposed requirements J26J. By July 1995, COM, Inc. had committed to establishment
<br />of six feet (6') of normal freeboard J16J.
<br />March, 1496 saw the submission of an acceptable tailings pond evaporation system design J24J,
<br />incorporating a 250 gpm pump and two inch (2") PVC water distribution lines, which is supposed to
<br />be operated daily whenever pumpable water is present in the pond J25J. Implementation, operation,
<br />and maintenance of this system has been problematic J28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 39J.
<br />Regulatory Summary: Regulatory oversight of COM, Inc. has been problematic over aft
<br />extended period, leading to deteriorated relationships with both the Board and the community J4J. A
<br />total of thirteen (13) Notices of Violation (NOV's) have been issued J2, 6, 36J, as well as eight (8)
<br />Cease and Desist Orders (C8cD0's) J6J in an ettbrt to achieve compliance with requirements (Set:
<br />Appendix A for a summary listing of the compliance history of this operation). Division concerns
<br />regarding establishment and maintenance of adequate freeboard have been repeated many times and
<br />discussed at length with company engineering, legal, and management personnel via inspection reports,
<br />meetings, and separate, detailed correspondence J7, 8, 12, 17, 18, 34, 39J. (See Appendix B for ;t
<br />more detailed breakdown of regulatory/enforcement ettbrts; comprehensive records exist in Division
<br />tiles). Full compliance with tailings pond and Hazel A freeboard requirements bas yet to be
<br />establiished.
<br />Imposed requirements have suffered from some inconsistency and erratic enforcement. For
<br />example a requirement for four feet (4') of normal freeboard was set in February 1995, with a deadline
<br />of June 7, 1995 JSJ. By June 21, a two foot (2') temporary dam raise had been approved by the;
<br />Division, without any formal relaxation of the initial requirement (or any apparent technical
<br />justification for doing so; see J3J). An equivalent situation exists with respect to the pumping
<br />requirements for the Hazel A, where nary-as-possible criterion was initially established in June '9`i
<br />~ 12J, restated in August '95 J17J, restated again in September '45 J18J, and again in May '97 but,
<br />puzzlingly, relaxed to a minimum of 12" of freeboard (about Erb" water depth) as.an acceptable worst
<br />case J35J. The operator, of course, promptly moved to the new limit (37J.
<br />Attempts to achieve compliance with the operational requirements of the tailings pond
<br />spray evaporation and contingency land application systems have not been successful to date.
<br />Requirements for the spray evaporation system were initially established in March of 1996 (24J, and
<br />further refined in April of that year ~25J. The land application system was defined and operational)
<br />requirements established in April 1996 J26~. The emergence of compliance problems was prompt and
<br />continuing J28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39~.
<br />'Technical Alternatives and Discussion: In light of the technical and regulatory situations
<br />outlined above, the COME has identified the following alternative courses of action:
<br />
|