ENFORCE23558

• Permit No: M1988112
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Date: 11/9/1993
• Doc Name: STATUS AND PROGRESS REPORT BATTLE MTN RESOURCES INC BMRI BOARD ORDERED ABATEMENT PLAN SAN LUIS PROJE
• From: DMG
• To: MLRB
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ,
STATE OF
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman 81., Room 215
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: 1]031 866-3567
FAX: 1]03) 832-8106
DATE: November 9, 1993
OF ~O/n
tip. `rP
y° % ~~
~/B'!6~
Roy Romer
Governor
Michael B. Long
Division Director
TO: Mined Land Reclamation Boar
FROM: Larry D. Oehler ~ ~ O. .~
RE; Statue and Progreso Report, Battle Mountain Resources, Inc. (BMRI),
Hoard Ordered Abatement Plan, San Luie Project, April 23, 192, Notice of
Violation No. M-92-026, File No. M-88-112
N
At a Formal Public Hearing held before the Mined Land Reclamation B and on
April 23, 1992, Battle Mountain Reeources, Inc. (HMRI) was found to be in violation
of C.R.S. 34-32-134 (1984 and 1991 supp.) for failure to comply wit the terms and
conditions of its permit. The Hoard assessed a civil penalty in th amount of
$168,900.00 and ordered 12 violation abatement requirements plus fo r interim Board
Orders. The civil penalty was assessed for violations that occurre during the
period of October 16, 1991 through April 7, 1992. The Board also d cided that
"If the cyanide continues to exceed the levels allowed under the pe it on or after
April 8, 1992, such levels may constitute a separate violation of t permit."
This issue will be revisited by the Division before the Board at a 1 ter date. The
status of the abatement requirements/interim orders and BMRI's grog se on each is
discussed below. This report covers the period July 1, 1993 throng
October 20, 1993.
Report Summary - For this violation the Board ordered 12 abatement i'~tems and 4
interim corrective actions. Of the 12 abatement items, 8 have been completed or are
in compliance, 1 ie ongoing, 1 ie in review, and 2 remain to be addressed. The
4 interim corrective actions have been complied with. For this repot period,
progress was made on abatement item nos. 6 and 8.
Under abatement item no. 6 the Division gave final approval of Techn'cal Revision
No. 8 with 5 stipulations. This permit revision adds three monitoring wells to the
existing ground water monitoring system ensuring the earliest poseib a detection of
lose of containment of tailings fluids. The stipulations ensure tha the Division
will know whether or not contaminated water has leaked from the containment system
before BMRI obtains release o£ reclamation responsibility,
Abatement item no. 8 requires BMRI to assess changes to the chemical constituency of
the tailings placed in the disposal facility during the period of vi lation and
subsequent tailings detoxification treatments. This assessment ie t help determine
whether or not changes to the tailings area reclamation plan and pe it financial
warranty will be required. BMRI'9 initial report states that the pr sent
reclamation plan ie adequate. However, the Division has asked for a ditional
information which is presently being reviewed.
The Costilla County Conservancy District (CCCD), party to the hearin~s that resulted
in the Board request for this report asked questions and commented o certain items
of past reports. I have restated these questions and comments below the appropriate
items and have provided a response to each one. i thought this migh be a good way
to inform the Board about what questions are being asked and what th Division's
responses are. All parties to the hearings will receive copies of t is report.