Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />Minutes, Rpril 22-23, 1992 <br />DRAFT <br />Subject To Soard Approval <br />pond. Dr. Hyatt said the long range affects of this have not been <br />determined. He briefly discussed other means of detoxifying cyanide. <br />Dr. Hyatt addressed the issue of the plant continuing to run, producing <br />gold and more cyanide, while the CyTox treatment system is pursued to <br />lower cyanide levels. He discussed issuing a cease and desist order on <br />the milling portion of the operation and suggested that an alternative <br />could be installing a mini-plant at the tailings pond sitE~, in order to <br />process the tailings. <br />Dr. Hyatt said the process for collecting and analyzing cyanide is <br />cumbersome. He said an independent on-site analytical system, <br />providing real-time analytical data, would be ideal for this <br />situation. However, he said this would take time to develop. Dr. <br />Hyatt suggested that operating the mill with CyTox, while it is <br />recovering ore, should be considered an amendment, rather than a <br />technical revision; he said it should be considered a new operation. <br />The Board asked Dr. Hyatt to provide specific recommendations that <br />would improve the situation. Dr. Hyatt provided the following <br />recommendations: 1) issue a cease and desist order to stop the <br />accumulation of the problem, 2) define the best way to treat the <br />cyanide pond, 3) treat the pond and recover it to the 4 parts per <br />million cyanide level, 4) review laboratory and pilot plant data on <br />representative ore samples to ascertain whether a new pc•ocess can be <br />developed that wouid lower cyanide to a 4 parts per mil ion level in <br />the tailings pond and 5) hold hearings on an amended or new permit. <br />Dr. Hyatt clarified that he could not be certain that the operator <br />could ever comply with the current permit. <br />In response to an inquiry from the Board, Mr. Frank Johnson discussed <br />the difference between requirements for amendments and revisions. He <br />said an amendment would be required if changes to the permit would <br />subsequently cause significant changes to the reclamation plan and <br />financial warranty. <br />Staff said that for immediate resolution of problems, the decision as <br />to whether the operator would require an amendment or technical <br />revision to the permit would be determined during the Division's review <br />of the operator's submittals. However, Staff said the Division already <br />recommended that the operator amend the permit to address future <br />environmental problems. <br />In response to an inquiry from the Board, Staff said that although the <br />operator's decision to use CyTox at the site is acceptable, the <br />Division does not consider it the best treatment alternative. Staff <br />said the long term implications of the use of CyTox are not known. <br />However, Staff clarified that, at this time, the operator was not <br />amending the permit, but responding to the immediate need to address <br />the problems at the site. <br />The Board asked the Division about placing a time frame on allowing the <br />operation to continue. Staff said this could be done at the Board's <br />