REV02620 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

From' Jeff Berman Fax'. +1(]D])546-9922 To: Berhan KeN.lew Fax30])812-6106 Page 5 a(9 ~ uasday. May 09. 20001:73 PM GoVoroda Wild lined area(s) recognizing that additional details in the form ofa technical revision will be submitted for final approval. Id. The company does not even know how mam~ of these detoxification facilities it will need at the site, noting only that there may be more than one. Apparently, CC V feels that a future technical revision process fully substitutes for tltc requirement that this Amendment comply with MLRB Rules and the Mined Land Act. "lhat is not the lau. The post-Summitville revisions to the MLRB Rules specifically require that application amendments contain detailed plans for any facility that may handle Designated Chemicals such as cyanide. These facilities are known as Environmental Protection Facilities (EPFs). The one or more "lined rinsing azea(s)" noted above are clearly EPFs. Under MLRB Rule 6.4.20 (10) Surface Water Control and Contaifmreni Facilities Ltformation, CC&V must: (a) Provide design specifications certified by a licensed professional engineer for all Environmental Protection Facilities intended to: (i) hold, convey, contain, or Vansport designated chemicals used in the extractive metallurgical process. Under Rule 6.4.20(15) Construction Schedult Information. DMG/MLRB cannot approve the Amendment until CC V: "provide[s] a detailed schedule for ... all facilities designed to contain or transport toxic or acid-forming materials or designated chemicals used in the extractive metallurgical process..." In this case. CCV has not submitted any specific plans for the detoxification! rinsing facilities, let alone a detailed construction schedule. Rule 6.4.20 also requires CC V to: (1) "demonstrate that containment facilities shall be of adequate size to provide sufficient reserve capacity ..." 6.4.20(7xf); (2) "Provide an evaluation of the expected effectiveness of each proposed and existing EPF, taking into consideration: (a) site- specific conditions...." 6.4.20(7xa); and (3) "Describe. with maps and narrative, the monitoring systems, [and] monitoring site locations....." 6.-1.20(7xd). This is only a subset of the entire Rules requirertJents for EPFs. For exaJnple, CC V must assure that all facilities aze reclaimed. (Section 3-1-32-112(3). CRS). yet it is impossible to determine the reclamation requirements of facilities until the DIvIG,~MLRB and the public have seen the specifications for these facilities. In this case, although CCV admits that the spent-ore detoxification/ rinsing facilities are needed for Amendment 8 operations, it failed to submit and' specific plans, designs, or other site-specific information. The company relies on vague arssurances that these new facilities will be as protective as it claims the VLF will ha. Vol. I at p. 77. Such generalized discussions fail to meet the strict submittal requirements for EPFs.