1992-04-22_REVISION - M1988112

• Permit No: M1988112
• IBM Index Class Name: REVISION
• Doc Date: 4/22/1992
• Doc Name: MINUTES MLRB
• Type & Sequence: AM1
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

• ~ ~ D ('DAFT
Minutes, Apri 1 22-23, 1992 32
Subject To Board Approval
It was MOVED that the Board find the operator in violation, as outlined
in the Staff's recommendation, for violating provisions of the permit
by exceeding 4.4 total and 3.8 weak acid dissociable cyanide levels in
the tailings slurry and the tailings and colltrction ponds, grant the
Division the authority to issue a cease and desist order if necessary
and adopt the abatement plan with the following additions: Item 4,
detoxification of cyanide--the effectiveness of the process to be
reviewed in 30 days and that if in 60 days the goals of the process
have not been achieved, another course of action be adopted
immediately; Item 12, monitoring and analysis protocol--direct the
Division to use its discretion to incorporate the use of the lysimeters
and other monitoring points that the Division may determine are
necessary to obtain a good hydrologic picture of the area, with a
report to be provided at the May 1992 Board Meeting; and add a
condition that a third party be employed, at the operator's expense, to
conduct water sampling and analysis to compliment the other data
collected and that this be done at the discretion of the Division
(suggested that this be conducted every 2 weeks); incorporate an Item
13 requiring monthly reporting to the Board in the form of an update,
until this is no longer required by the Board. SECONDED.
In response to an inquiry from the Board, Mr. Frank Johnson discussed a
mechanism to insure the that ail parties and the public are given an
opportunity tc have input `nto the process. He suggested that the
Board could issue a final order today, regarding all the issues, and
include the submittal of an amendment as an abatement requirement; he
also suggested that the Board could adopt an interim order and schedule
another hearing for next moth, allowing time for public comment, and
issue a final order at that time.
The Director said that the hlay 4, 1992 date included in the abatement
plan for the submittal of monitoring changes as a technical revision
could be changed, to allow time for public comment. Mr. Johnson
clarified that the Division makes decisions regarding technical
revisions. However, he said those decisions could be appealed to the
Board.
Regarding the issue of water sampling and analysis, the Division
clarified that it will be considered the third party for about 3 weeks,
until a sampling protocol has been developed. The operator and
objectors had no objection.
Ms. Jacquez said the objects>rs want to have an opportunity to provide
technical input, if the operator submits a technical revision,
specifically as it relates to the issue of sampling and monitoring.
The Board asked the operator if it would be possible to provide
information to the parties., within the next 30 days, regarding the
monitoring plan, the selection of the third party for sampling and
analysis, etc. Mr. Massey said the compliance plan established
deadlines for the submittal ~~f technical revisions.
It was MOVED that the Board amend the previous Motion to set deadlines
representative of the dates of the May and June 1992 Board Meetings,
rather than 30 and 60 days. SECONDED.