Laserfiche WebLink
• D Flo ~~ <br />Minutes, July 22-24, 1992 Subject To Board Approval 4 . <br />pond WAD cyanide levels to 50 perm by July 3, 1992, 2) maintain the <br />level below 50 ppm once achieved, 3) implement additional ground water <br />monitoring--this work has begun, i.e., initiation of installation of <br />ground water monitoring wells, and 4) use all reasonably practicable <br />steps to lower the cyanide levels in the pond as low as possible. At <br />that time, the Board also direc~:ed that the Division, at the July 1992 <br />Board Meeting, provide a report on the status of this matter and a <br />recommendation for a compliance schedule to bring the pond in <br />compliance with permitted cyanide levels. <br />Staff presented EXHIBIT B, charts of WAD cyanide levels from June 15 to <br />July 13, 1992, and the results of analyses conducted during that time. <br />Staff said that the charts indicated that on June 29, 1992, cyanide <br />levels were below 50 ppm, and after July 6, 1992 to the present the <br />levels remain in a range of about 10 ppm. Staff said that on July 21, <br />1992, the operator informed they Division that results 6f the 2 most <br />recent analyses indicated that cyanide levels are at about 1/2 ppm in <br />the upper pond. <br />Staff said the cyanide levels in the collection pond are still high, <br />because it takes longer for the water in the collection pond to cycle <br />through the (collection and treatment) system. Staff said it is <br />expected that the cyanide levels in the collection pond will be lowered <br />within the next couple of weeks. <br />The operator is using 3 methods for analyzing cyanide levels: <br />1) Degussa is the contractor onsite supplying peroxide and testing, <br />2) Core Labs is conducting the independent analysis and 3> San Luis <br />analysis is conducted onsite and is the inhouse method used since the <br />mine started operating. Staff said the 3 methods of analysis are <br />similar and provide results that can be collected in the same range. <br />The Board asked Staff to respond to their concern about the operator's <br />ability to meet the deadline required in abatement requirement No. 6, <br />i.e., permitting, installation, testing, etc., of additional monitoring <br />wells. Staff explained the process that the operator will follow in <br />order to comply with the requirement and said that the Division feels <br />the deadline could be met. <br />Staff referenced a request made by the Board during its June 1992 <br />Meeting, regarding the Division's provision, during today's Meeting, of <br />a schedule and recommendation for any techniques to be applied by the <br />operator to bring the collection and tailings ponds into compliance <br />with permit conditions. Staff provided an indepth discussion of this <br />issue and explained that approval, implementation and compliance of <br />TR5-007 and O10 should ultimately reduce all cyanide concentrations to <br />levels contained in the permit. <br />Staff presented and provided a detailed discussion of the components of <br />EXHIBIT C (Interim Order Concerning Detoxification), a proposed Order <br />containing additional corrective zrctions, specifying the methods and <br />procedures the operator will be required to follow in order to bring <br />the site into compliance with the original permitted cyanide standards <br />within the next few months. <br />