APPCOR10242 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.~ .. I ~ • Mr. Fred Matter, P.E. October 22, 1982 Page 7 above regarding construction and verification of ponds at dis- charge points 7 and 17 and approval of CYCC's Mine 3 mining per- mit regarding discharge point 14. The NOV also cites CYCC for a violation of the pH effluent limitations on June 22, 1982, for discharge point 1. This excur- sion is almost certainly the result of miscalibration of the instrument used to make the test. Figures for pH have never exceeded the limitation before; nothing occurred or changed at the mine that could explain the reading; the person taking the reading did not remember whether or not he calibrated the instru- ment before taking the test at the outflow point; and perhaps most telling, the inflow to this 50 acre foot pond gave an average pH reading of 7.6 when it was tested on the same day. As a summary of the above information, I have prepared a chart listing each alleged violation and, in very abbreviated form, CYCC's response to each alleged violation. The chart ie attached as Exhibit 7. CYCC understands its obligations and the requirements im- posed on it by the Permit and applicable laws and regulations. CYCC affirmatively wishes to meet its obligations regarding water quality. Most of the information provided in this letter has previously been submitted to the Division, (albeit in a more abbreviated form) over the course of the last fifteen months. It is hoped that collation of all responses in one document will help provide sufficient evidence to you of CYCC's good-faith efforts to comply with its obligations, even when the require- ments of the Department of Health are directly contrary to the • requirements of MLRD. CYCC understands that it has complied with paragraphs 1 and 4 of the Cease and Desist Order. Based on our discussions at the October 12 meeting, CYCC further understands that the re- quirements of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Cease and Desist Order will be held in abeyance, and will not be enforced pending the discussions and correspondence in which we are currently engag- ing. If your understanding is different, or if you feel that a formal amended Order or even an amended Permit is necessary at this point, please so advise and CYCC will cooperate in whatever way necessary. Please review the information provided in this letter and give me a written response at your earliest convenience. CYCC contemplates, either as a response to this letter or perhaps