Laserfiche WebLink
4/07/92 Division approved COM, Inc.'s technical revision to utilize an <br />updated version of the permitted method for patching the tailings <br />impoundment liner. <br />4/09/92 Division faxed Rule 1.14 for Reconsideration of Board decisions to <br />Mr. Tatman. <br />4/13/92 Division received a request for reconsideration of the Board Order <br />and Notice of Violation No. M-92-021 from COM, Inc. lawyer <br />James Munn. A copy was faxed to Mr. Steen. A copy was mailed to <br />the members of the Board. <br />4/13/92 Division met with Mr. Tatman and Mrs. Fraser to answer questions on <br />how they can bring the site into compliance with the State law. <br />Division reiterated that the co-permittees can either comply with <br />the terms of the current permit or jointly agree to modify the <br />current permit to operate differently. <br />4/14/92 Mrs. Fraser sent a fax synopsis of 4/13/92 meeting between the <br />Division and COM, Inc. <br />4/15/92 Division reiterated to Mr. Tatman that the amendment submitted by <br />Mr. Tatman needs to be signed by both co-permittees. <br />4/16/92 Division inspected the Cash Mill site. The rips and holes in the <br />tailings pond liner were being patched. The spilled tailings were <br />only partially cleaned up. Mr. Steen and the Division identified <br />an erosion channel and deposition of tailings in the channel from <br />the tailings pond to the Hazel A adit. This constitutes off-site <br />damage. Several other possible problems identified included <br />possible ore processing after the Cease and Desist Order was <br />issued, removing a slash pile from the site, clean out of upland <br />diversion ditches, marking boundary of affected area, installing a <br />permit sign, and erecting stand pipes in the tailings pond. <br />Mr. Steen asked for continuation of Board consideration of the <br />current possible violations to the May Board meeting to get the <br />site in compliante. The Division agreed to recommend a <br />continuation to the May Board meeting as a last chance to bring the <br />site into Compliance. <br />4/20/92 Division sent a letter to the co-permittees that the amendment is <br />inadequate. <br />4/20/92 Division met with representatives of both co-permittees to answer <br />questions regarding options to be pursued by the co-permittees to: <br />(1) get the site in compliance, (2) attempt to determine how the <br />permit can be managed by the co-permittees, and (3> discuss the <br />issues raised on the 4/16/92 Division inspection of the site. <br />Mr. Tatman provided documentation to support the contention that <br />the mill has not been operated since 2/29/92. <br />-2- <br />