My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE37810
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE37810
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:46:42 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 3:46:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1988112
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
8/11/1992
Doc Name
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE BMRI SAN LUIS PROJECT TAILINGS PONDS PN M-88-112
From
MLRD
To
PHILIP M HOCKER
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />Letter to Philip M. Hocker, MPI <br />Status of Compliance of BMRI <br />page 2 <br />treatment process on July 30, 1992. The installation of the INCO <br />process equipment is scheduled to be completed by the end of <br />September, 1992. Further, immediately following INCO im lmentation <br />BMRI is required to treat both tailings ponds to brin them into <br />compliance with the original permit cyanide standar s (4.4 ppm <br />total cyanide and 3.8 ppm WAD cyanide) as soon as po Bible. In <br />contrast to your conclusion, I believe that the Divis on (State) <br />has adopted a stringent approach to the seriouness an timing of <br />BMRI's response to this situation. <br />In the third paragraph of your letter to Luke Da ielson you <br />observed that you were also concerned because "there ap ears to be <br />no action taken, or planned or proposed, to assess the antity and <br />concentration of cyanide which has been deposited in t e tailings <br />slurry". Abatement requirement #8 of the attached M y 28, 1992 <br />Board Order specifically requires BMRI to c mplete a <br />recharacterization of the long term chemical consitue cy of the <br />tailings. Further, if appropriate, BMRI is required to modify its <br />existing reclamation plan for the tailings embankment.' I contend <br />that the MLRB and the Division have indicated that an evaluation of <br />the entire chemical constituency of the tailings,i far more <br />comprehensive than evaluating cyanide content alone, i necessary <br />before the issue of final disposition of the tailings st ucture can <br />be appropriately resolved. <br />I appreciate the fact that you have demonstrated an ~nterest in <br />Battle Mountain Resource Inc.'s (BMRI's) San Luis Projec since our <br />earlier consideration of Amendment #1 in 1989. I ecall our <br />telephone discussion of several months ago. Please be a sured that <br />I and the Division value all comment received from kn wledgeable <br />and involved individuals such as you. In that regard, should you <br />desire to visit the site, I would be glad to assist you in <br />obtaining access to the site. If my schedule can be amended, I <br />could also accompany you to the site. BMRI has been r ceptive to <br />interested parties visiting the San Luis site. As ou may be <br />aware, BMRI recently hosted a site visit by members of the Board, <br />the Division, the parties to this action, and technical onsultants <br />to the parties. I am confident BMRI would acco odate any <br />reasonable request you might make. <br />If I can be of any additional assistance in facilit ting your <br />consideration of the San Luis situation or any of er mining <br />operation within our jurisdiction, please do not h sitate to <br />contact me. It would be my pleasure to assist you in ormulating <br />a comprehensive and informed understanding of our regulatory <br />program. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.