Laserfiche WebLink
JUL- 5-95 WED 230 PM TESS~CT PRODUCTIONS F>iX N0. 479713 P, B <br />water balance. This has not, to our knowledge, been discussed in <br />any depth anywhere beyond general statements that pond water will <br />be reryc}ed back to the Mill and that net use rates will be kept as <br />low as possible. <br />Compliance Issues: <br />We stated at the June 22 Board hearing, and continue to believe, <br />that the principal issues of concern relate not to the Applicant's <br />technical posture but to the Applicant's apparent attitude as <br />demonstrated by objective behavior. The long and melancholy <br />history o€ this operation is amply documented and we will not <br />belabor it here. Yet we are unable to refrain from citing the <br />response prior and subsequent to the latest tailmgs spill which <br />occurred on as about May 31 of this year. <br />We reported (see ref. 9) to Division Staff on May 30 that tailings <br />pond water level had overtopped the liner in some places and <br />threatened to overtop the dam. Given the proximity of the <br />upcoming permit hearing and the obviously difficult short term <br />technical problem (ao freeboard in the pond sod a nearly full and <br />badly leaking Haul A), we expected prompt and technically astute <br />response from the operator, with the closest coordination with Staff <br />so as to gain the necessary emergency approvals for a temporary <br />dam raise or even a deliberate partial discharge if necessary to <br />prevent dam overtopping. We were therefore amazed to discover <br />(on June 1, I believe) that the operator had apparently simply <br />pulled the plug and walked away, leaving the pond draining freely <br />into the Hazel A, with no one visible on-site. <br />Ora amazement was compounded when we heard Mill management <br />testify (udder oath) that no more than three or tour inches of water <br />had been drained by the decant system - this in the face of a <br />Division survey (ref. 3) detailing the present pond bottom profile, <br />available freeboard, and estimated available containment. The Mill <br />manager went so far as to challenge those measurements, in front <br />of (recessed) Board members, on ffie basis of his estimates using <br />a ruler. There was no acknowledgement of the illegality of the <br />discharge (no matter the amount), no explanation why no effort <br />was made to work the problem with Staff, no expression even of <br />regret that the incidem occuured. <br />In the face of these and along-continued series of other events w•e, <br />as members of the tax-paying public, are unable to see how we can <br />be expected to support either the Applicant's petition for a new <br />permit or the wntiauadon of the old one. (For that matter, we are <br />