1992-05-27_REVISION - M1988112

• Permit No: M1988112
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 5/27/1992
• Doc Name: DRAFT SUBJECT TO BOARD APPROVAL
• Type & Sequence: AM1
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

r
Minutes, May 21-28, 1992
DRAF~f'
Subject To Board Approval
20(b)--requirement for submission of comments--and suggested that the
Order provide a requirement for comments to be submitted to all
parties. The Director suggested that the Order require parties
submitting comments to provide copies for all parties.
After further discussion Board Member Stewart suggested that the
frequency of monitoring and sampling be changed from "every two weeks"
to "...at a frequency to be determined by the Division".
Ms. Nora Jacquez, representing the Concerned Citizens of Costilla
County, stated that she was concerned that the September 13, 1991 date
included in paragraph 14 of the proposed order represented the first
day of violation. She said the date was not established at the April
1992 Board Meeting as the first day of violation and asked that this be
deleted from the Finding of Fact. She further asked that, in regard to
abatement procedure No. 13, the word "water" be deleted; she said the
type of monitoring proposed by her clients is independent monitoring
and is not limited to water monitoring. Ms. Jacquez asE~.ed that the
proposed order provide clarification, regarding whether ~ cease and
desist order would be issued if the operator does not reach compliance
with permitted cyanide levels by June 24, 1992. Referring to paragraph
20, Ms. Jacquez said she wanted clarification about resolution of
abatement requirements, specifically, whether technical revisions or
amendments would be submitted.
Ms. Jacquez referenced a May 26, 1992 letter discussing cyanide levels,
and a May 23, 1992 memo regarding the abatement requirements and said
she wanted the information included in the record. Mr. Johnson noted
that the portion of the hearing in which evidence was received by the
Board had ended.
Mr. Massey said the operator also assumed that the evidentiary portion
of the record had been completed. He said the informatior, offered by
Ms. Jacquez was being submitted late, and, therefore, should not be
accepted. Mr. Massey referenced the proposed order and addressed
issues raised by Ms. Jacquez. Specifically, he said September 13, 1991
was established as the first day of violation by the Board, based on
information presented by the Division. He said independent water
monitoring was the only type of monitoring now necessary.
Ms. Jacquez stated the information she wanted to submit fog the record
constituted the positions of the Cos tiila County Conservancy District
and the People's Energy Alternative, regarding the resolution of
abatement requirements established by the Division and Board.
The Board explained that the evidentiary portion of the Meeting had,
indeed, been closed. In response to an inquiry from the Board and a
concern raised by Ms. Jacquez, Staff said use of the terminology
"satisfied" in relation to abatement requirements meant that although
the violation had not been actually abated, the operator had agreed to
comply with the terms of abatement developed by the Division and Board.